Oral Answers to Questions

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Media Advisers

Andrew Selous: How many communications, press and marketing staff were employed in the civil service in (a) 1996-97 and (b) 2006-07.

Edward Miliband: In a civil service of 500,000, there are approximately 400 press officers in Whitehall Departments. The Central Office of Information white book lists 3,250 Government entries, but this includes a range of functions such as providing information to the public through publications, websites and campaigns around issues such as road safety, public health and smoking. There are no directly comparable figures for 1996-97.

Andrew Selous: Government is about choices, so why have this Government put PR above police pay?

Edward Miliband: Government is indeed about choices. I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that this Government have increased spending on, because it is something close to his heart: advertising for public information on health. In 1997-98, we spent £2 million; in the last year for which figures are available, 2006-07, we spent £43 million. That is about making choices to inform people about healthy living and how they can improve their own health. I would have thought that he would welcome that.

Kevin Barron: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the threats to the health of the public in the 21st century will be exactly as he describes—the lifestyles that we all, young and old, have in this country? Public information about smoking and childhood obesity are vitally important, and it would be completely irresponsible for any Government not to ensure that good messages get through to protect people's health.

Edward Miliband: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the work that he did in leading the campaign on smoking in the workplace and the ban that was introduced. His work, and that of hon. Members in all parts of the House, made the difference in that campaign. He is right that we need to do more to inform the public about the dangers of second-hand smoking, for example, and that is another area that the Government have been investing in.

David Tredinnick: Is not the real problem that during the tenure of this Government the roles of public relations people, civil servants and political advisers have got incredibly muddled and mixed up? We need a new civil service Act to define very clearly what civil servants should do and what political operators should do.

Edward Miliband: I do not necessarily accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I bring him good news: as part of the constitutional renewal Bill, we will legislate for the principles of a civil service Act. I hope that he will welcome that Bill and engage with it. I also point out that the Prime Minister has repealed the Orders in Council relating to the civil service that some people had criticised. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also welcomes that, and I look forward to his support for our Bill.

Greg Clark: The Minister will be pleased to acquire the talents of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who is now part of his team. He is a true communications guru. He is a pioneering blogger and a highly influential letter writer, and he even produced for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) the widely respected YouTube spoof of the Leader of the Opposition. Now that his Cabinet Office has the benefit of such talented communications skillsand, of course, those of the other Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope)why does it need 35 communications officers, including one supporting each of the three Ministers?

Edward Miliband: There are eight press officers in the Cabinet Office. Once again, the hon. Gentleman, in common with his hon. Friends who have already spoken, undervalues the importance of information. The Government would be criticised if we were not providing information to people through websites and through other forms of communication. Interestingly, listed in the Government white book are people who work on Directgov, which is the site that provides information to millions of people around this country on the issues that matter to them. The hon. Gentleman should welcome what we are doing on this, not criticise it.

Public Spaces

Dawn Butler: What support the Government plan to provide to help local people make use of high-quality public spaces for voluntary activities in the next three years.

Phil Hope: The Government are committed to providing opportunities for local third sector organisations and public bodies to work together to ensure the best use of public spaces and buildings. The new 30 million community assets programme will provide grants to improve local authority assets so that they can be transferred to community ownership. That is just one element of a broad programme of support for local authorities and third sector organisations to develop quality partnerships to ensure the best use of high-quality assets.

Dawn Butler: I thank the Minister for his response. In line with that answer, on 15 March, Wembley stadium will open its doors to voluntary organisations and the London borough of Brent to talk about facilities and its football development programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that that programme, along with the extended schools programme, is one of the right steps forward in making sure that our young people keep fitter, and in the development of stars for the future? As we are talking about Wembley, will the Minister also join me in congratulating the football

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Phil Hope: I wish the England team and their new manager every successthat is one European partnership that I am sure the whole House would want to support. I congratulate Wembley and Brent council for creating their new partnership. There are many football teams throughout the leagues that create such partnerships, and they bring real benefits, such as new learning centres and the engagement of young people in their communities in imaginative ways that provide them with constructive alternatives and opportunities for learning. I shall visit Watford football club in the near future to learn about the success it is having in improving the community around its town.

Gary Streeter: I welcome this new initiative, and any help to local and voluntary groups is always welcome. However, is not the real support that the third sector wants from the Government the provision of more clarity and long-term core funding? What can the Minister tell us about the real help that local groups in all our constituencies are looking for?

Phil Hope: I have some very good news for the hon. Gentleman. If he reads today's edition of  The Guardian, he will see an announcement about the new Grassroots Grants campaign. That grant regime will provide a flow of revenue funding, which is particularly targeted at small, local voluntary organisations, whose grant needs often get overlooked. It will be rolling out from this summer through local providers, and it will consist of not only a revenue stream, but an endowment fund to provide sustainable funding for local voluntary organisations over the years ahead.

Martin Linton: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the happy campaigners of the Gwynneth Morgan day centre, whom he visited recently, on their campaigns on pavements and post offices, which took place with the help and encouragement of his Department? Does he agree that campaigning is an important activity for voluntary organisations and charities?

Phil Hope: We had an excellent morning in Wandsworth with the happy campaigners. The group is a Leonard Cheshire group, and it is standing up for the needs of its community. It is campaigning for better pavements in particular. We want to see such campaigning throughout the countrypeople with needs in their local areas having a voice. We want those who do not have a voice, who are the most marginalised, to have the opportunity to speak up and get public services to respond to their needs. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does in his constituency in standing up for groups that are often the most overlooked.

Information Assurance

Shailesh Vara: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Cabinet Office in providing information assurance across Government.

Tom Watson: The Cabinet Office sets out the strategic direction for information assurance in Government. Individual Departments are responsible for following the strategy and protecting the data that they hold.

Shailesh Vara: Will the Minister finally confirm what is abundantly clear to the rest of the countrythat there is insufficient Government information assurance for schemes such as ID cards and national road pricing?

Tom Watson: The Government take information assurance very seriously, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I have spent a lot of time in my new post understanding this new brief. The Prime Minister announced that the new Secretary of State for Wales will be increasing ministerial firepower on the matter, and any lessons that have to be learnt, will be.

Andrew Miller: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment. When he considers the failures that there have been in data security, he will find a common thread. It is not a policy failure, but a failure of management and training. Will he look at what the private sector does to ensure that people are properly trained and that they are aware of their obligations under privacy legislation, and will he ensure that such rules are adopted in the civil service?

Tom Watson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I know that he is an recognised expert in this House on information assurance. His points on training are important and one of the early indications from the O'Donnell review is that there is a role for enhanced training. If such training is required to be mandatory, it probably should be.

Francis Maude: I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box; no doubt that is his reward for his part in dispatching the previous Prime Minister.
	Two years ago the Walport report called for the Government to improve data security, warning that leaks of personal data would damage the Government's reputation. A year ago, Sir Edmund Burton, the Cabinet Office's own adviser on information assurance, pointed out a systemic lack of awareness of data security throughout the Government. Just last summer, the Coleman report raised concernsa report that it is now clear that no Minister actually bothered to read. After all those warnings, and after 25 million bank details have gone missing, benefit files were dumped on a roundabout and 3 million drivers' records were lost in Iowa, of all places, why are we still seeing personal data disasters week after week?

Tom Watson: Let me repeat my earlier answer: we take the matter seriously, and the information assurance strategy launched last June increased Government security. The O'Donnell review, when it reports, will again improve Government policy. Four principles underpin our approach to that review. We require enhanced transparency, increased monitoring, improved guidance and better, and possibly mandatory, training.

Francis Maude: How many reports does the Minister need? He has had three so far. The problem is not a lack of transparency, but a great deal too much of it in respect of personal data.
	Nick Coleman said in his report last year that
	adequate mechanisms are not yet in place...which puts at risk the government's aspirations for service delivery enabled by technology.
	Is not that the clearest possible indication that the Government can never be trusted with all the personal data involved in setting up a national ID card? When will Ministers at the centre of Government show some leadership, get a grip and start to protect the public's personal data, which are constantly being put at risk?

Tom Watson: The O'Donnell review is already changing Departments' activities. The right hon. Gentleman and I both aspire to a cultural change in Government. Our hard-working civil servants should deal with people's personal information in the same way as they deal with taxpayers' money. That is a contemporary challenge for Government. Twenty-five years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman first entered Parliamentand when his Front-Bench colleague the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and I were probably playing Manic Miner on a 48-kilobyte ZX Spectrumthe information that can now be held on a DVD would have filled 400 filing cabinets. We are rising to that contemporary challenge and Departments are taking action.

Gordon Prentice: The Government want the Information Commissioner to carry out spot checks on Departments to ensure that data are secure. Is that happening and does the Information Commissioner have enough staff to make a decent job of it?

Tom Watson: That is a matter for the Information Commissioner, but we will give him all the support he requires in doing that job. Indeed, that was announced in the interim review from the O'Donnell report.

Voluntary Sector (2012 Olympics)

Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the impact of the UK's hosting the 2012 Olympics on the funding available for voluntary sector organisations.

Phil Hope: The Olympics will bring huge benefits to the whole country and the Big Lottery Fund has introduced important safeguards to protect the amount of funding available to voluntary sector organisations. The fund has ensured that no existing lottery projects will be affected and that the original estimated 2 billion over the next five years will continue to be available for the third sector.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister knows that the Big Lottery Fund has allocated resources to many thousands of important and valuable voluntary organisations and clubs. Although I welcome the Government's assurance that there will be no further raids on good causes, will he please confirm that the voluntary sector will get the same amount of funding from the Big Lottery Fund, or the same share of funding, as it now receives?

Phil Hope: That was the point of my original answer. I confirm that the original estimate of 2 billion for the next five years will be available for the third sector. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned for the Big Lottery Fund to give its resources to the third sector, he might have a word with Conservative Front Benchers, who recently announced that they would cut 250 million from the amount going from the fund to the Olympics. That would take 250 million away from the voluntary sector.

Derek Wyatt: One of the positive aspects of London 2012 is that more than 100,000 people will volunteer. Will the Minister consider creating a national vocational qualification for volunteering and, most of all, establishing an Olympic volunteers day that will connect not only this country but all the cities that have hosted the Olympics throughout the world since 1896?

Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution to work on the Olympics. He and I played rugby together many years ago in the parliamentary rugby teamsomething that we will probably not do again in future. The volunteers to whom he refers are essential. Qualifications that volunteers can attain, as part of acknowledging the contribution that they make, are an important part of the process of accreditation that we would like to happen. This is, of course, a matter for voluntary organisations and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, but my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, because there are genuine opportunities to be taken.

Susan Kramer: One of the strengths of the Big Lottery Fund has been the fact that it funds not only the third sector, but the statutory and private organisations that partner that sector. That is where the cuts of 425 million will fall. Will the Minister make it clear what impact he thinks those cuts will have on the ability to deliver real outputs and projects on the ground?

Phil Hope: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. The Olympic games offer many opportunities, including business opportunities for many social enterprises in the third sector. It has been estimated that Social Enterprise London could be a contender to bid for around 500 million of business related to the Olympic games. As well as resources for the third sector being safeguarded, there are opportunities for social enterprises in the sector to be deliverers of the Olympic games and the opportunities that they provide.

Fiona Mactaggart: But can the Minister ensure that young people and voluntary organisations in places that are affected by the Olympics, such as Slough, with the rowing at Dorney, will be able to make the most of the ambitions and the opportunities for sport and outdoor play that the games will bring to this country?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend has a great track record on all these issues. I can assure her that the Olympic games will provide young people in particular with opportunities not only as volunteersmany of the 70,000 or 100,000 volunteers will be young people, which will provide them with new opportunitiesbut through the many voluntary and third sector organisations that will play their part in their local communities, thereby benefiting from the wave of excitement and interest that we have generated not just in this country, but across the world, as we host the most successful Olympic games ever.

Charles Walker: The Minister has given assurances that no more lottery money will be siphoned off between now and the Olympics to fund the building of infrastructure projects, but does that guarantee extend to the legacy? There is concern in some quarters that the legacy will be funded by future raids on the lottery fund.

Phil Hope: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. I remind him that we have managed successfully to safeguard that level of resourcing for third sector organisations from the Big Lottery Fund not just over the five years, but beyond the Olympic games. Again, however, I suggest that he talk to those on his own Front Bench, who would inflict 250 million of cuts on the voluntary sector with their proposals on funding the Olympics.

Julie Morgan: I welcome the benefits of the Olympics, but will my hon. Friend conduct a review of all the voluntary groups that have suffered from the diversion of funds to the Olympics? I understand that the Welsh Jazz Society, which is run by volunteers, is losing funding as a result of cuts to the Arts Council of Wales from the lottery. Can he look into that, please?

Phil Hope: I am not familiar with the specific project and funding that my hon. Friend describes, but I re-emphasise that we are protecting third sector organisations' funding from the Big Lottery Fund. Indeed, the director general of the Big Lottery Fund said:
	I am pleased that we will be able to protect existing programmes and the money earmarked for the Third Sector.
	The Arts Councils and my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have announced additional funding through the mainstream programmes, from which I am sure organisations such as the one that my hon. Friend described may wish to benefit.

Gregory Campbell: Many young people in the third sector throughout the United Kingdom are looking forward to participating in the Olympics. The Minister has given assurances across a range of issues in respect of grant assistance, but will he repeat those assurances for the regions, so that people in Northern Ireland will not be penalised for participating in and supporting the Olympic games?

Phil Hope: I am absolutely certain that the people of Northern Ireland will not be penalised; indeed, I hope to see athletes from Northern Ireland playing their part in the Olympic teams. Northern Ireland will benefit hugely from the Olympics, and that will involve not just the young people participating, but sport as a whole rising in popularity and participation, and bringing benefits to both the individuals concerned and the wider community.

Graham Stringer: Is it not the case that Adam Blake's report on the economic impact of the Olympics in the English regions and Wales and Scotland showed that, outside London, that impact will be wholly negative? What is my hon. Friend going to do to compensate for that?

Phil Hope: I do not recognise that claim, as I believe that there will be genuine social and economic benefits throughout the UK. Indeed, we now have new regional Ministers covering each of the nine English regions. I know that each of those Ministers will make it one of their priorities to ensure that the Olympics bring real social and economic benefits to every region throughout England and, indeed, throughout the UK.

Roger Gale: The question on the Order Paper asks what assessment the Minister has made of the effect of the funding of the Olympics on voluntary organisations. I have listened to the Minister very carefully, but is he seriously trying to suggest that the redirection of money siphoned off for the Olympics will not impact on other good causes and on the voluntary sector? If he is, that does not match up with the experience of our constituents.

Phil Hope: One of the benefits of discussions in the Chamber is the ability to provide reassurances; in this case, I reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that we have secured 2 billion over the next five yearsand beyond into the legacy of the Olympicsso that voluntary sector organisations will receive the resources that they need to carry on the great work that they do in many disadvantaged areas of the country. I repeat my plea: the hon. Gentleman should talk to his Front Benchers, as it is his party's proposals that would cut 250 million

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Third Sector

Madeleine Moon: What assessment he has made of the role that third sector organisations play in campaigning for social change; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Miliband: Third sector organisations play an essential role in campaigning for change in laws and attitudes. Whether it is large charities that have campaigned around issues from disability to child protection or small charities that wish to speak out on local issues, their work plays an important role in speaking up for those who would otherwise not have their voice properly heard.

Madeleine Moon: Given that suicide among young people aged 14 to 25 accounts for 20 per cent. of all deaths in that age rangeit is second only to accidental deathand that 19,000 young people attempt suicide each year, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that organisations such as the Samaritans continue their campaigning work to bring that issue to public attention and provide the strategies to help and support young people to avoid suicide, and to inform the Government about how serious this issue is for young people?

Edward Miliband: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Samaritans for their work in my own local area and across the country, including in my hon. Friend's constituency. She is absolutely right that the particular insights that the Samaritans gain into the problems of the people who come to them put them in a unique position to campaign on the issues that really matter for such people. We should welcome their work and enable it to continue.

Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State has rightly paid tribute to the Samaritans and other voluntary organisations, can he please drop this ghastly jargon of third sector?

Edward Miliband: I know that some hon. Members and people outside the House feel strongly about this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not invent the term, which is used by the sector itself. Debate about it will no doubt continue.

Community Assets Programme

Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on the scope of the community assets programme.

Phil Hope: The 30 million community assets programme aims to empower communities by providing grants to improve public assets so that they can be transferred to community ownership. The need for the programme was established following extensive consultation with the third sector on its priorities.

Phyllis Starkey: My constituency in Milton Keynes has a pressing need for more youth facilities. Will the Minister explain whether it would be possible for young people in the community to be actively involved in the groups putting forward bids for these community assets?

Phil Hope: I can give my hon. Friend the good news that young people or youth organisations will be able to bid for these resources if they wish to run some sort of youth provision of their own in the community. I have further good news for her: the Bill on unclaimed assets that is currently going through Parliament will release a huge amount of resources so that in every community across the country, young people will have new facilities, new centres and new opportunities to create social enterprises that will meet their own needs and the wider needs of the local community.

County Palatine

Nigel Evans: How much in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's fund is available for distribution to good causes in the County Palatine.

Edward Miliband: For 2008, the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund has budgeted to distribute 375,000 to good causes, up from 345,000 last year, of which 290,000 will be allocated to the County Palatine and the balance to other geographical areas where the duchy has links.

Nigel Evans: One of the more delightful responsibilities that the Chancellor of the Duchy of the Lancaster has is for that fund. It does a lot of good work, particularly for smaller organisations and charities, and for MPs who represent the County Palatine. Can he ensure that it receives more publicity, so that more organisations are able to benefit from the funds available?

Edward Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for advance notice of it. I have talked to the chief executive of the duchy and we will work on ensuring that there is widespread publicity about the money available. Small organisations can bid for that money, and it is important that all those who can benefit know about it.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Ann Cryer: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 February.

Gordon Brown: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Ann Cryer: My right hon. Friend must be well aware of the concern in this House and beyond regarding the stories that are circulating about bugging and surveillance. Can he assure me that the inquiry that he has announced will be thorough, will examine all the issues of concern, and will report back promptly to the House? At the end of the day, our constituents must be assured that they can talk to us in confidence.

Gordon Brown: The inquiry will be detailed; it is under a very distinguished chairman, Sir Christopher Rose; it will report back quickly; and the Justice Secretary will make a statement to the House of Commons. It is right to put in context what has happened over the past few days, and to say that we all benefit from the work of the police and security services and the surveillance necessary to defend our security, preserve our freedom and in some cases save lives. In addition to the inquiry being held, however, protections are in place under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, including authorisation by a senior officer, the right to appeal, oversight by an independent tribunal and the annual reports on the number of intercepts and surveillance operations taking place. The Justice Secretary has said that he was not aware of any information regarding covert recording or anything like that until last weekend. Where there are questions, however, it is right to investigate. In the meantime, it is right for us not to add to the game of speculation, nor to presume the results of the inquiry.

David Cameron: Can the Prime Minister tell us how many reviews he has set up since becoming Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: I have set up quite a number of reviews and it is right to do so. We are in the process of making the changes that are necessary for the future of this country. We will report today on one of the reviews, the Chilcot review, and I hope that there will be agreement that that was the right thing to do.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has established 52 reviewsone every four days. It is no wonder that he does not have time to open his post. They include reviews of behaviour partnerships, physics and even sunbedsI presume that that is to keep the former Welsh Secretary busy now that he is not in the Government. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), says about the reviews that the
	current uncertainties
	in government
	are widespread, debilitating and give ammunition to Labour's opponents.
	He specifically mentions hospitals, schools and local government. Who is the source of this dithering, or does the Prime Minister need a bit more time to find out?

Gordon Brown: I would just repeat the words of the former Chancellor: too many soundbites, not enough substance. When it comes to the reviews, we are reviewing the policy of super-casinosthat is what the public want us to do; we are reviewing the policy on cannabisthat is what the public want us to do; we are reviewing the policy on affordable housing to build eco-townsthat is what the public want us to do. I do not think that the Opposition understand that the world is changing around us. We need to review the right things to do. We are doing that. As a result, we are the party that has created 3 million jobs, the party with low inflation and low interest rates, and the party that is investing in education and health.

David Cameron: When will the Prime Minister understand that it is not reviews but decisions that people want? Let us look at the list of policies that the former Home Secretary says are incomplete. These are the policies that the Prime Minister's former Cabinet colleague says he is dithering about: local government, trust schools, foundation hospitals, housing, disability[Hon. Members: Reading!] I have to read, because there is such a long list of things that the Prime Minister is dithering about. He talks about soundbites, but he cannot even think of his own: he has to borrow them from the former Chancellor.
	Let us take just one exampleA-levels. The Prime Minister's Schools Secretary says that there will be an open-minded review, and that he cannot guarantee their future. Will the Prime Minister contradict his Schools Secretary, and tell us that A-levels are here to stay?

Gordon Brown: Let us look at what we are doing on education. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is wrong for us to have a review. We are proposing education to the age of 18; he is against it. We want education for all; he wants education for some.
	We are proposing diplomas. We have said we will make a decision in 2012, and that A-levels will continue to exist. That decision will be made in 2012, and it is the right decision for the country: to build on diplomas with A-levels. The right hon. Gentleman is opposing it.
	We are proposing that the number of apprenticeships be doubled. The Conservatives are not supporting that policy of the Government. We are proposing additional expenditure on education and school buildings. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to transfer the money to another programme.
	We are the party that is investing in the future. We are the party for the long term. The right hon. Gentleman's is the party of the short-term gibe.

David Cameron: I think the Prime Minister had been practising that soundbite all week, and do you know what? It is still rubbish.
	Never mind the smokescreen. It is a simple question. I want A-levels to stay. I think they are a great qualification. What does the Prime Minister want?

Gordon Brown: A-levels are staying. We made the decision that until 2012 diplomas would go side by side with A-levels, and then we would make a decision about the future. That is right for the country.
	I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: does he support education to the age of 18, as we do? Yes or no? We are for education for all. The right hon. Gentleman is for education only for some.

David Cameron: Everyone wants more children to stay at school until they are 18. Everyone wants better vocational education. But the Prime Minister has a very simple question to answer. He just said that A-levels were safe until 2013, but we want a guarantee beyond that. We want to know that A-levels will stay for good. The Schools Secretary cannot guarantee their future, the head of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority says that they will be out of the door, so let us try it one more time. Will the Prime Minister confirm that A-levels will stay for the long term?

Gordon Brown: Yes, and it is right to test the new system and to make the decision in 2012. But I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. We are for education until the age of 18. We want to give every child the right, free of charge, to stay in education until the age of 18. Is the right hon. Gentleman for that policy, or is he against it?

David Cameron: Anyone listening to this will recognise that this Prime Minister cannot answer a question, and cannot make a decision. He cannot make a decision: I think he is incapable of it. Parents, teachers and children listening to this who want A-levels to continue just want a straight answer. Will they not look at the Prime Minister and say This is a hopeless, dithering Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: I have given the answer: A-levels and diplomas will go side by side. What the right hon. Gentleman has failed to tell us is whether he supports education until the age of 18. We have said that we will give every child and young person the right to education until the age of 18. It is the biggest change in the educational system for 60 years, and the right hon. Gentleman is unable to tell us whether or not he supports it. This is the Leader of the Opposition who wants to look both ways on an important policy. I tell him this: we are investing in the long term, and he refuses to do so.

Chris Mole: Will my right hon. Friend ask his Cabinet colleagues responsible for energy and for defence to work closely together to deal with concerns raised recently about the interaction between wind farms and defence radar systems? Will he ask them to ensure that any concerns expressed about a particular application for a wind farm are proportionate to our defence needs, but do not prevent the urgent need to make progress in installing wind farms around the United Kingdom?

Gordon Brown: I was discussing this very matter with colleagues on Monday. It is important to recognise that offshore wind will be a very important part of the development of renewable energy for the future. We will have to invest in it in the future, but we will also have to deal with the military and security problems that will arise as a result. We are currently discussing these matters in order to reach a sensible conclusion.

Nicholas Clegg: This week's bugging controversy should not come as a surprise to the Prime Minister. After all, it is this Government who have turned the British public into the most spied upon on the planet: 1,000 surveillance requests every day; 1 million innocent people on the Government's DNA database; and 5,000 schools now fingerprinting our children at school. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke so stirringly a few months ago about the great British tradition of liberty?

Gordon Brown: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal authorities support CCTV. I take it that they support the intercept action that is taken when it is necessary for national security. I take it that he accepts that only 1,500 intercepts have been commissioned by Ministers as a result of urgent security needs. Does he accept these things or not?

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister seems to see no limits. He is creating a surveillance state. Why has he consistently refused requests for more power to be given to the Information Commissioner? Why does he not do what is already done in Scotland and remove the DNA of innocent people from the database? Why will he not act immediately to stop the scandalous fingerprinting of our children at school?

Gordon Brown: People in this country are reassured by the presence of CCTV; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to remove it. That is one very important part of the investigatory and surveillance powers that we give the police to carry out their work. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman would look at the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and see the protections that have been put in place where there is surveillance and where there are intercepts. They include authorisation by a senior officer, the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, and a commissioner for surveillance who looks at matters and reports annually. We are taking the steps to protect the liberties of the citizens; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support that.

David Clelland: Gateshead council is planning the development of a 20-acre brownfield site near the town centre for housing, 25 per cent. of which would be affordable housing. However, the completion of the acquisition of the site is being held up by the British Rail residuary board on the rather curious premise that the council has depressed the valuation of the site by planning affordable housing. Should this public body not be more au fait with Government priorities and objectives, and will my right hon. Friend look into this matter and try to break the logjam?

Gordon Brown: I will of course look into the matter. There is a need for affordable housing in every part of the country, and we will wish to do the best that we can to meet the target of 3 million new houses by 2020, a very substantial number of them affordable for first-time buyers. I will look into the issue about public sector and private sector land, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Robert Goodwill: At the last election, the Government promised a referendum on the EU treaty. Now, four Labour MPs who are campaigning for that referendum have been told by the Prime Minister that they could lose the Whip. Is it now the case that keeping one's word with the voters is incompatible with membership of the Labour party?

Gordon Brown: What was called the constitutional concept was abandoned, and no country except Ireland is proposing to hold a referendum on the European treaty. The question the Conservatives must answer for themselves is whether, after the ratification of the treaty, they are going to propose a referendum which could mean a fundamental renegotiation of our membership of the European Union. The questions now go to the Conservative party.

Gwyn Prosser: Next year, Dover gets its high-speed rail link, and regeneration of the town and the port will take off with the potential to create thousands of new jobs; but that will be realised only if the last few miles of the A2the route to the portis dualled and upgraded. That work is being thwarted by the South East England regional assembly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that assemblies such as SEERA are preventing places like Dover from reaching their true potential? He will not be surprised to learn that they are all controlled by Tory councillors.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend campaigns for the future of Dover with vigour and determination. I agree that urgent decisions on transport are having to be made throughout the country. The A2 is an important regional route. I gather that there has been an application for support from the growth fund, and I suggest that he asks for a meeting with the Department for Transport to discuss these issues.

James Arbuthnot: Does the Prime Minister agree it is a real tragedy that following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 a rain of rockets has fallen on towns such as Sderot? Now, there has been this most recent suicide bombing. Does he agree that if Israel were given a greater degree of security, the lives of Palestinians would be transformed out of all recognition?

Gordon Brown: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is important that we move forward by guaranteeing the security of Israel and then responding to the urgent needs of the Palestinian people. The talks that are taking place, which started at Annapolis and are continuing in talks between Prime Minister Olmert and the leader of the Palestinian Authority, are important if we are to get the breakthroughs that are necessary. I want to see more action dealing with the poverty that now exists in the two areas of the Palestinian Authority, but I also want to be able to safeguard the security of Israel. I shall be talking soon to Prime Minister Olmert about those very issues, and I hope to be able to attend the Palestinians' investment conference to support them in their activities in the next few months.

Jimmy Hood: My right hon. Friend is aware that this Government have done good work in dealing with institutionalised poverty through welfare reform, the minimum wage, working tax credits and minimum income guarantees. Does he agree that there is still much to do, particularly to protect people in the workplace from rogue employers who criminally exploit agency workers by paying them less than the minimum wage and by hiring and firing in breach of the law?

Gordon Brown: That is why we are looking to see how we can progress the agency workers directive and why we created a vulnerable workers forum to examine the problems faced by people in some of the lowest paid jobs in the country. I must also remind my hon. Friend that the biggest single measure that we have taken to protect vulnerable workersthe creation of a minimum wagewas opposed by the Conservative party.

William McCrea: I am a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland who believes that his home and office phones were bugged for years. What assurance can the Prime Minister give this House that if tapping occurred in the past, it will not continue in the future?

Gordon Brown: A report is made every year by the chief surveillance commissionerthe commissioner responsible for intercepts. He provides the information that is available for people to look at. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about these issues.

Paddy Tipping: Whoever is elected as the next President of the United States, is it not important that we maintain a strong and close relationship with such a significant ally? Is not the sign of such a relationship a willingness to discuss areas of difference, for example climate change and the middle east, so that together we can make a difference?

Gordon Brown: The relationship between a British Prime Minister and the President of the United States is one of the most important. Every Prime Minister and every President will be very keen to preserve and extend that relationship. As my hon. Friend says, there are genuine issues that we have to discuss together, not least, as he mentions, climate change, and security issues around the world. I shall be meeting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later today to discuss our co-operation on a range of foreign policy issues, including Afghanistan.

Peter Lilley: As compensation for breaking his promise on the referendum, the Prime Minister made a new promise to this House. He said that it would be able to consider the treaty incorporating the substance of the constitution line-by-line in a Committee of the whole House, yet not a single clause relating to immigration, asylum and border controls has been, or will be, considered in a Committee of the whole House, be that through line-by-line examination, amendments or a vote. What are his promises worth?

Gordon Brown: We are considering the European Union (Amendment) Bill day by day in the House of Commons in great detail. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was a member of the Cabinet that denied the British people a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

Michael Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sale of counterfeit cigarettes across south Yorkshire and across the country generally has been described as a ticking health time bomb? A recent committee of Barnsley metropolitan borough council reported the warning that many of those cigarettes contain heavy metals that could screw a person's health. In addition to the activity of the Customs and the police, will he consider a national campaign to raise awareness against this danger and avert a health crisis?

Gordon Brown: I shall look at the issue that my hon. Friend raises, because counterfeit products that are sold to children are a danger indeed. I remind him that legislation is before Parliament to strengthen sanctions against shops that repeatedly sell cigarettes to children, and on 1 October 2007 the age for the sale of tobacco products was raised from 16 to 18. We will take what action is necessary to protect young people from that evil.

Bob Russell: Within the last hour it has been confirmed that troops from 16 Air Assault Brigade in my constituency are to be deployed to Afghanistan. Last week, I was in Helmand province and I can report that the spirits of our brave men and women are exceptionally high. However, will the Prime Minister take action to ensure that our European allies do more to provide troops on the ground and helicopters and all other logistical support?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has visited our troops in Afghanistan. They are doing a superb job, morale is extremely high and they are making a huge difference, not only through the actions they take but in training Afghan troops for the future. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that an announcement has been made by the Secretary of State for Defence about 16 Airborne going to Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman is also right in that what we are seeking, especially at the NATO summit in a few weeks' time, is a determination on the part of all our allies to ensure that the burden sharing in Afghanistan is fair. We have 15 per cent. of the troops in Afghanistan, and other countries, including Spain and France, have made announcements that they will add to their troops. We need proper burden sharing, not only in personnel but in helicopters and other equipment.

Nick Palmer: Local developers in my constituency have put forward proposals to build on virtually the entire green belt in the area. I do not expect the Prime Minister to comment on individual proposals, but does he agree with me that Labour stands for sustained, planned development of affordable housing with good public transport available, not for rewarding speculative greed?

Gordon Brown: When we came to power, brownfield was 56 per cent. of new development. We set a target of 60 per cent. and it is now at 75 per cent. as a result of the decisions that we have taken. I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend raises about his constituency, but I can tell him that there is a proposal for an eco-town next to it, and I hope that that will gain some support.

Patrick Mercer: As we have already heard, the next deployment of 16 Air Assault Brigade to Afghanistan has been announced this morning. However, that does not include the 600 extra troops that senior officers in the brigade have requested. They have been told that there are simply not enough fighting men for war on two fronts. Could the Prime Minister personally ensure that there are enough bayonets on the ground to hold the territory that we have so bloodily won against the inevitable Taliban assault in the spring?

Gordon Brown: The statement that I made in December was widely welcomed. I said that our troop numbers would be around 7,800, and we would maintain them at around that number for the foreseeable future. I repeat that we are providing 15 per cent. of the coalition forces in Afghanistan. There are 41 countries making contributions and it is right that there is greater burden sharing. That is also the view of our armed forces, and I will strive to achieve that in both personnel and equipment.

Brian Jenkins: As a parent, what guidance would my right hon. Friend offer to 15 or 16-year-old youngsters who do not see their future in the sixth form, do not wish to go on to higher education and do not see academic studies as right for them? As Prime Minister, what will he do to allow them to realise their ambitions?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. We know that every young person will need skills in the future to obtain the best jobs available, and that is why those who do not choose the academic route should have the option of apprenticeships or preparation for apprenticeships. That is why we are increasing the number of apprenticeships, which were dying out when we came to power in 1997, to 250,000, and will double that number in the future. I had hoped that there would be all-party support for that, but unfortunately the Conservatives cannot support the long-term investment that we are making in education.

Angela Watkinson: The police want cannabis to be reclassified as a class B drug; so do the mental health profession and the general public, and so do I. The evidence is there; what is the Prime Minister waiting for?

Gordon Brown: I have also given my view, but we are waiting for the report that we have commissioned into that.

Linda Riordan: In Halifax town centre, violent crime has recently fallen by 40 per cent. In congratulating the various agencies involved in achieving that result, will the Prime Minister look to increase the number of police officers in Halifax so that crime continues to fall?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who refers to excellent work by the police in her area. The reason that is possible is that we now have the highest number of police in our history and we have community support officers. We are building neighbourhood policing for the future. I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to ensure that people in our country not only see that the streets are safe at night but feel that they are safe.

James Gray: In answer to the two previous questions, the Prime Minister escaped from his involvement in Afghanistan by talking about jointery with other nations. When I was there last week, in Lashkar Gah and Camp Bastion, I was horrified by the shortage of helicopter availability, which means that our troops are late getting into the line and coming home from it. Will the Prime Minister reiterate what his predecessor saidnamely, that whatever our generals need on the front line, he will supply it?

Gordon Brown: We are in constant discussion about what is right for the future. Not only do we have 7,800 troops in Afghanistan, but we are putting new helicopters on the ground over the next few months and we are making available additional equipment. Under urgent operational requirements, we provided 6 billion over the past few years for new equipment, so whatever equipment has been needed, we have been prepared to provide it.

Margaret Moran: In my previous life, I was proud to have been responsible for the building known as Mouse Castle, which was the refuge for suffragettes who suffered starvation and brutality in the fight for women's right to vote. Given that today is the 90th anniversary of women's suffrage, what more does my right hon. Friend intend to do to ensure that more women are represented in this placemore than the one in five who sit mostly on the Labour Benchesin honour of those suffragettes and their suffering?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should celebrate the fact that 90 years have passed after the beginning of the suffragette movement. She is also right to say that we are all proud that as a result of our victory in 1997 and subsequently, there are more women in the House of Commons than ever before, and we want to see more after the next general election. I agree with her that there should be a permanent memorial to the campaign that was mounted for the right to vote. Perhaps a monument on Parliament square would be a good indication of the support of the whole country.

Peter Luff: Bizarrely, the Prime Minister has referred twice in these Prime Minister's questions to the popularity of eco-towns. Obviously, he is not aware of the overwhelming opposition to them in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). If he is capable of taking a decision and wants to prove that he is a true democrat, will he take this opportunity to rule out both those sites now?

Gordon Brown: Unfortunately, the Conservative party is not only against eco-towns but against building homes altogether. There have been 60 applications for eco-towns, so it does not sound as though they are unpopularit sounds as though they are popular. Once again, the Conservative party is on the wrong side of the argument.

Mark Durkan: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has issued a public warning about the significant threat from the Real IRA and its need to take profile precautions. I know he will agree that all democratic parties should join in condemning the Real IRA, which is stuck in the Provo thing of the past, but does he also agree that, beyond that proper condemnation, the best thing that all the democratic parties can do to unite in defying and denying the throw-back agenda of the Real IRA is to secure the devolution of justice and policing sooner rather than later?

Gordon Brown: This is our objective: I condemn absolutely any organisation that preaches the cause of violence in Northern Ireland. We have come such a long way over the past few years thanks to the co-operation of all the parties and the people of Northern Ireland. We are determined to build on that with economic prosperity for Northern Ireland in future years and that is what we will do, working with the people of Northern Ireland.

John Baron: Now that the Information Commissioner and an information tribunal have instructed the Government to release the John Williams draft of the 2002 Iraq dossier, saying that it could add to what we know about the role that spin doctors played in presenting the case for war and highlighting discrepancies in the evidence produced by the Foreign Office, will the Prime Minister release the document immediately? If not, why not?

Gordon Brown: A decision will be announced very soon.

Ian Lucas: In 2004, the Sharp Corporation of Japan committed investment to Wrexham and the UK for the manufacture of a new generation of photovoltaic cells and renewable energy modules. What effect does my right hon. Friend think that rejection of the Lisbon treaty would have on future inward investment in the UK?

Gordon Brown: We all know that Japan invests in Britain and that it sees Britain as its road into the rest of the European market. We all know that 60 per cent. of our trade is with the rest of the EU. Those people who want to detach us from the rest of Europe are making a huge mistake, not just politically and environmentally but economically. This Government have created 3 million jobs and are determined to create even more.

Chilcot Report

Gordon Brown: The Government are today publishing the results of work on the use of communications intercepts as evidence. Those results are contained in the report of the committee of Privy Councillors drawn from the three major parties that was chaired by the right hon. Sir John Chilcot. I am grateful to Sir John, Lord Hurd, Lord Archer, and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for that report. It is thorough, measured, detailed, and unanimous, and it properly reflects both the seriousness and the complexity of the questions that their committee was asked to address.
	Let me again pay tribute to our security agencies for all that they do, quietly and effectively, in the defence of our country. I have met and listened to those who lead our agencies, as well as many who serve in them. I praise the expertise, professionalism and courage that they show, often in the most testing and dangerous of circumstances but always in the best interests of our country. I acknowledge, as I believe that all here acknowledge, that what they do defends our freedom, protects our security and saves lives.
	The use of intercept in evidence characterises a central dilemma that we face as a free society: preserving our liberties and the rule of law while at the same time keeping our nation safe and secure. In July, in the first statement that I made on security to the House, I said that I favoured the principle of using intercept material as evidence in criminal cases if, but only if, a way could be found to do so while protecting the higher interests of national security. I therefore invited the cross-party Chilcot committee to advise on
	whether a regime to allow the use of intercepted material in court can be devised that facilitates bringing cases to trial while meeting the overall imperative to safeguard national security.
	Today, I am publishing a version of the Chilcot committee's report. The committee itself has prepared this version, which omitsin the interests of national securitycertain sensitive facts and arguments. Its main conclusions and recommendations, however, are exactly those of the full report.
	Briefly, the report examines in detail both the potential benefits of accepting intercept as evidence and the risks that might arise from such acceptance. However, it concludes that it should be possible to find a way to use some intercept material as evidence, providedand only providedthat certain key conditions can be met. Those conditions relate to the most vital imperative of all: safeguarding our national security. The Government accept that recommendation, and take the accompanying conditions very seriously.
	Intercepts are strictly controlled under the 2000 legislation. Interception is allowed only if it is necessary to obtain information that could not be acquired in another way, and any interception must be proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. The relevant decisions of Ministers are overseen by a senior judge and by the interception of communications commissioner, who reports at least annually. In addition, an investigatory powers tribunal exists to consider complaints from the public, and it has powers to order appropriate remedies.
	The most recent figures for numbers of interception warrants are in the interception commissioner's annual report, which was published on 28 January. A total of 1,435 intercept warrants were issued in the last nine months of 2006 and that compares with 2,407 in the previous 15 months.
	The Chilcot report notes that there are already limited circumstances in civil and terrorist proceedings where intercept can be used in evidence. Each of those instances includes appropriate protections, such as closed proceedings, to ensure that the use of intercept does not put our national security at risk. For any new regime, the Chilcot report sets down conditions. It starts from the proposition that
	any material risk to the strategic capability of the UK's intelligence agencies would be unacceptable,
	and that
	Any disclosure of interception capabilities could have a profound impact on national security.
	That is right. The report also says that any resulting reduction in inter-agency co-operation
	could have a profound impact on law enforcement agencies' ability to combat serious crime and terrorism,
	and the Government also agree with that assessment.
	The report sets out nine conditions in detail. They relate to complex and important issues, and include: giving the intercepting agencies the ability to retain control over whether their material is used in prosecutions; ensuring that disclosure of material cannot be required against the wishes of the agency originating the material; protecting the current close co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, which is crucial; and ensuring that agencies cannot be required to transcribe or make notes of material beyond a standard of detail that they deem necessary.
	The committee that reported to us acknowledges that further extensive work is needed to see whether and how those and other conditionsintended to protect sensitive techniques, safeguard resources, and ensure that intercept can still be used effectively for intelligencecan be met. That is a unanimous recommendation that the Government accept, so we will proceed to develop a detailed implementation plan under which material might be made available for use in criminal cases in England and Wales, strictly subject to all the Chilcot conditions being met. The report is clear that if the conditions could not be met, intercept as evidence should not be introduced, and the Government accept that.
	Similarly, the committee recommends that in the event of a regime being introduced that later fails to meet the Chilcot conditions or otherwise threatens our security, that regime should be removed pending the introduction of another, under which the conditions can once again be met. The Government also accept that recommendation. The report also states that the committee has seen no evidence to suggest that the need for measures such as control orders would be reduced by the introduction of intercept as evidence.
	Designing a regime to meet the Chilcot conditions will require, as the committee notes, a substantial programme of work, covering legal, operational and technical issues. The work must involve and engage the intelligence agencies, Government Departments, the legal system, and those responsible for communications. The Chilcot team have made it clear to me that the necessary work should be led by an implementation team within Government, which should move ahead comprehensively and quickly. However, the Chilcot team also told me that they would not expect the work to be concluded in time to inform the Counter-Terrorism Bill currently before Parliament.
	The Government strongly believe that it is in the national interest to draw on a wide range of expert external advice. The cross-party nature of the Chilcot report has been of great value. I am therefore grateful for Opposition parties' agreement that Sir John Chilcot, Lord Archer, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and another member to be nominated should advise on Privy Councillor terms during the next stage of the work.
	The Chilcot report also notes that communications technology is changing rapidly; there is a switch towards internet protocol communications, with the clear implications that that brings for our security. Accordingly, we have launched the interception modernisation programme to update our capability to ensure that, under those new circumstances, our national interests will continue to be protected. The new regime for intercept as evidence must be designed to work safely and effectively for that new capability, too.
	As the Chilcot report states, the challenges ahead are complex and must not, and will not, be underestimated. The Government acknowledge and endorse the valuable work of the committee, and are grateful for the committee's support in our continuing efforts to meet the double challenge that we face as a nation. The challenge is at all times and without fail to protect our nation's security while advancing the rule of law. This we will always seek to do. I commend the statement to the House.

David Cameron: May I first thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and join him in paying tribute to our security services? Nothing matters more than our national security and keeping us safe from terror. Our aim should be to catch, convict and imprison more terrorists. Last year, I pressed Tony Blair to make intercept evidence available in court. When he was not prepared to take that up straight away, I suggested that a cross-party committee of Privy Councillors look at how intercept might be used in court. I am glad that that work is now complete. I join the Prime Minister in thanking all of those who took part. They have done their job, and now he must do his. Will he confirm that the implementation group that he intends to set up will not be a talking shop for further delay, but a vehicle for making the recommendations happen? Will he give us a commitment to Government legislation as soon as possible?
	Does the Prime Minister agree that up till now there have been four issues that have held back the use of intercept evidence in court: first, a clear recommendation from an independent body that that is the right and necessary thing to do to protect our country; secondly, a lack of a clear understanding of the benefits that it could bring in criminal and terrorist trials; thirdly, a satisfactory method of protecting vital intelligence-gathering techniques; and fourthly, a legal framework to ensure that the effective use of intercept in court can happen while maintaining a fair trial? Does the Prime Minister agree that the report effectively gives good answers to all four questions? Let me take them in turn.
	First, the report is admirably clear when it says:
	We therefore agree with the principle that intercept as evidence should be introduced.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that, as this is the first Government-commissioned report by a group of people who are independent from the Government, that is an incredibly powerful recommendation? Secondly, on the real benefits of using intercept in court, does the Prime Minister agree that the report does not just cite experience from abroad, but quotes the UK's Crown Prosecution Service? Is not the CPS clear that the use of intercept will significantly influence the course of trials andit findslead to more guilty pleas and fewer abortive trials?
	The third issue is the importance of protecting intelligence sources and methods. Does the Prime Minister agree that the report is extremely helpful in that respect, too? In particular, does he agree with the report when it states that
	Australia does appear to us to be a compelling example of how intercept as evidence can be used in a Common Law jurisdiction?
	Is it not extremely helpful that the report states:
	The Australian example, in particular, provides a number of interesting ideas for how the UK could attempt to derive benefit from intercept as evidence, whilst not unacceptably increasing the risk of disclosure to intelligence agencies and their sensitive capabilities and techniques?
	Fourthly, there is the question of legal model to get the recommendations right. The issue is how we both protect intelligence sources and maintain a fair trial. Does the Prime Minister agree with the report specifically that a reinforced system of public interest immunity could enable the evidence to be used in a way that protects the intelligence services, but guarantees a fair trial?
	Finally, let me ask about plans for implementation. The report will mean nothing unless it is implemented. I know that the Prime Minister is establishing a cross-party advisory group. Will he guarantee that he will accept our nomination of a Privy Councillor for that group? Does he understand that there will be a nagging suspicion that setting up another committee to look at the implementation of the recommendations will lead to delay? Does he accept that there will never be unanimity in Whitehall on the matter? Another committee will deliberate, reflect and no doubt have different views. That is what committees do. That is what happens in Whitehall. Does he agree that, at the end of the day, it is a political decision and has to be made by a politicianand that means him?
	It is clear what needs to be done: intercept in court so that we catch, convict and imprison more terrorists. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must not put off endlessly what needs to be done?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's general support for what we are doing, and I am grateful for the degree of all-party consensus that has developed. The actions that we are taking with the implementation group are a vehicle not for delay but for getting on with implementation. I agree that we want to achieve legislation as soon as possible.
	If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the report's conclusion, he must also accept that the Chilcot teamincluding representatives from his partyacknowledge that a considerable amount of work remains to be done. They do not conclude that all the questions have been answered and that all that is lacking is political will. They conclude that what we need to do is look in detail at the legal and technical implications that arise from their wish to see the right balance struck between liberty and security.
	The report does not say that Australia is the model for how we should move forward. It uses Australia as an example of where it has been possible to have intercept as evidence, but it does not propose that we accept the model that is used in Australia, which is quite different from the public interest immunity proposal that the right hon. Gentleman accepts has been put forward by the committee.
	We have always accepted in principle the case for doing this. We have always hoped that clear benefits would be available. The Metropolitan police survey of terrorist cases shows that the rate of prosecution could rise from 88 to 92 per cent. However, the committee also shows that considerable hurdles need to be crossed. It wants the intercepting agencies to have the ability to retain control over whether the material is used in prosecutions. It wants to ensure that disclosure of material cannot be required against the wishes of the agency originating the material, and that agencies cannot be required to transcribe or make notes on material beyond the standard of detail that they deem necessary.
	All those issues will have to be looked at in considering the demands of courts and court cases. I believe that a considerable amount of work still needs to be done. I am glad that we have an all-party agreement to move forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that there are technical and legal issues to be resolved. The purpose of the advisory group is to continue with the all-party co-operation, and I look forward to the nominations to be put forward by his party.

Nicholas Clegg: I, too, thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and the report. I pay tribute to Sir John and all his colleagues for having produced what is self-evidently a very thorough and rigorous report on a sensitive and delicate issue. I warmly welcome the fact that they have opened the door to allowing intercept evidence to become admissible in court, even though that door is only ajar and further work needs to be done to make the recommendation a reality. We have long argued that intercept evidence should be admissible in court, in keeping with so many other jurisdictions around the world. That is part of our wider belief that we can and should do more to strengthen our judicial system so that there are more prosecutions in anti-terror cases.
	I welcome the Prime Minister's emphasis on a cross-party approach on this issue; I regret that there is not that emphasis on other important issues in the anti-terrorism debatenotably, the extension of the period of detention without charge. Given that we have made so much progress on this issue and on issues such as post-charge questioning, I urge him to revisit the need for a further extensionto up to 42 daysof the period during which the police can detain people without charge.
	May I ask the Prime Minister three specific questions about the mechanics of what happens after the production of the Chilcot report? First, I acknowledge and understand that it is unlikely if not impossible for any further implementation recommendations to be produced during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill through the House. However, will he be more specific and commit that the work will at least be complete during this Parliament? Without a timetable, legitimate fears will be provoked that there will just be delay on delay in the crucial implementing phase of the process.
	Secondly, will the Prime Minister clarify exactly what the relationship will be between the implementation group and the advisory group? It is, of course, a good thing that the advisory group will have a cross-party composition, but if it is to have a somewhat passive, observatory role, it will not fulfil the function that many people want it to fulfil: to hold the implementation group's feet to the fire to ensure that the Chilcot report recommendations are followed up in detail in the months ahead.
	Finally, although I realise that it would be inappropriate to name the individual civil servants in the implementation group, will the Prime Minister at least enumerate which Departments and agencies will be part of it, so that once it reaches conclusions there will be an endorsement, on behalf of all the Government and all the Government agencies, of the group's implementing recommendations?

Gordon Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for our proposals. At the end he raised issues about the nature of the implementation group; perhaps we can arrange talks on Privy Council terms about how that will move forward. I agree that in principle it is right to do this, and I have always thought that there is a very strong case for doing so if we can find the means. The problem is that although we can draw parallels with other jurisdictions, ours is distinctivenot just because of the adversarial system and the European convention on human rights, but because of the special capabilities that we have in Britain and our co-operation with overseas services.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, as the committee has told us, the position on control orders has not changed. I would like to think that we could have the same degree of consensus on the proposal about questioning and the 42 days. I still believe that the proposal put forward by Liberty which he and the Conservative party supported is a basis for moving forward. In the legislation that we put forward, we have made proposals in line with that. I hope we can have discussions on that in the future.
	On the distinction between the implementation team and the advisory group, let me make it clear that an implementation group was recommended by the Chilcot committee. It did not feel that it could continue with the technical and legal work on its own, and it suggested that we set up an implementation committee. The advisory committee will be there, as its name suggests, to advise as we go through the work.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement and the speed with which he has accepted Sir John Chilcot's recommendations. As he knows, this is entirely in keeping with the Home Affairs Committee's decision of 11 December to recommend that intercept evidence be used. In view of the current climate, is he satisfied that the robustness exists for the accountability and supervision of the whole area of surveillance? Once he receives the Rose report, if he is not satisfied will heat the risk of exciting the Leader of the Oppositioninitiate a review of this area, to ensure that it is robust and that there is proper accountability and supervision?

Gordon Brown: The remit of the Rose review was set out by the Justice Secretary on Monday. It will report very quicklyin two weeks' time, when the Justice Secretary will come and make a statement. I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for what we are doing on the major issue of the use of intercepts in evidence.

Douglas Hogg: Obviously the House will applaud the decision to move forward. It will be important, however, to ensure that the trials are fair and that the interests of the defendants are taken into account. That being so, please could the implementation group contain people with current experience of representing defendants in criminal cases, or at least take urgent and clear advice from such persons? The interests of the defendants must be taken into account.

Gordon Brown: This will all be taken into account. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is volunteering for the work

Andrew Robathan: Yes!

Gordon Brown: There seems to be some support for that on the Opposition Front Bench. We will look at all these issues. It is important that we look at it from the point of view of how a trial will look in the future. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the section in the report on public interest immunity certificates. He might find that the way that is being suggested by the committee is to his satisfaction.

David Winnick: No one in this House underestimates for one moment the terrorist danger to our country and our people. If, arising from the Prime Minister's welcome statement today, there is near all-party agreement on many measures, not least on combating the acute danger of terrorism, will the Government give serious consideration to the question of detention without charge? No evidence whatever has been produced to justify going beyond 28 days, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has said that he is quite satisfied with 28 days. Why create this division when there is no necessity to do so?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend brings the issue back to 42 days, but I have to say that the Home Affairs Committee, of which he is a member, has said that as a precautionary principle it might be necessary to move beyond 28 days. The issue is not whether, in principle, it is necessary at some stage to move beyond 28 days. The real question is whether we can find agreement on how we do it. I hope that we can find that way forward.

Alan Beith: Will the Prime Minister note that the group received unlimited co-operation from the agencies and other bodies, and from many individuals, and unstinting support from our very small staff? May I take it as a clear political commitment that the Prime Minister intends to bring in a regime that ensures that guilty people are locked up on the basis of good evidence, and that he intends to do so while ensuring that all the safeguards for vital national security intelligence, as well as the intelligence needed for the pursuit of crime, are in place?

Gordon Brown: That is exactly what we want to do, but the conditions or tests that have been set down by the Chilcot committeeof which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member; I thank him for his workare of a legal and technical nature and have to be worked through. I think that he would agree that his committee recommended that, if we could not find satisfactory answers to these conditions, we should not recommend moving ahead. It is our hope that we can find satisfactory answers, but it is important that the tests are met and that the conditions that have been set down are satisfactorily delivered. That is the next stage of the work of the implementation group, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join the advisory committee to work with it.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that intercept evidence, such as that connected with the recent Crevice trial, has been used to prevent some appalling terrorist atrocities in this country? Will he ask those responsible for taking this work forward to take into account the fact that, if such evidence is to be used in court, it could inhibit important operations?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters, and has a great deal of experience of them. I thank him for his observation. Intercept evidence can be hugely important. As I said in my statement, it is already used in certain instances. The important test now is to ensure that, if we are to use it, the conditions set down by the Chilcot committee are met. When my right hon. Friend looks at those conditions, he will see that they are strenuous, but, for the safety and security of the security services, it is important that we meet them.

Hywel Williams: Plaid Cymru welcomes the use of intercept evidence in court, not least because it might reduce the pressure for pre-charge detention. The report defers to the experience of many other countries. Will the Prime Minister highlight what particular lessons the Government learned from the experience of those other countries in this regard?

Gordon Brown: A great deal has been learned from the attempts that have been made in other countries to use intercept evidence in court. However, I must draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the observation of the committeeand my reading of the reportthat Britain has a very distinctive system. We have an adversarial system, we are subject to the ECHRwhich is not true of Australia or Americaand we have a high level of co-operation with other intelligence agencies around the world. We also have the kind of high degree of co-operation between the police and the security services that sometimes does not exist in other services. The solutions to the challenges that we face in Britain will be unique, which is why a different model from that of other countries is being proposed for examination by the Chilcot committee. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman looks at the committee's work and the tests that it has set, he will see that we are providing a British solution to the problem.

Gavin Strang: May I thank the Prime Minister for making this statement himself? He will be well aware of the reasons why some right hon. and hon. Members are opposed to the use of intercept evidence in court. I applaud his decision to give the go-ahead to the programme of extensive and comprehensive work to which he referred, and to which the report refers. May I invite him to ask the Leader of the House to facilitate a debate on the Chilcot report in the House of Commons in due course?

Gordon Brown: It will be a matter for the House as to whether there is a debate on these issues. The Chilcot report asks for more work to be done, and I hope that it can be done quickly and with a degree of comprehensiveness so that people can be satisfied that we have dealt with the issues that the report raises. I am sure that there will be an occasion that we, as a Government, will find to make it possible for a debate to take place.

Jeremy Wright: The Prime Minister will recognise that when the prosecuting authorities in criminal courts wish to avoid the disclosure of an observation site, for example, they can make an application under the public interest immunity procedure. If that application is unsuccessful, they always have the option of not proceeding with the prosecution. As that system already exists and works well, could not any adaptation of it necessary for the use of intercept evidence be done sooner rather than later, given that the Government haverightly, in my viewdecided that this proposal is a good idea?

Gordon Brown: If that were the only issue, it might be possible to move more quickly. When the hon. Gentleman reads the Chilcot report, he will find that there are nine tests, rather than just one. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will agree with that. The report raises issues such as the protection of sensitive techniques used by the intelligence services; the safeguarding of resourceswhich will be an important issueas well as ensuring that intercept can still be used effectively for intelligence; and the protection of the present close co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. All those issues must be dealt with, and I would be failing in my duty to the House if I did not say that the Chilcot report leaves us with very big hurdles to overcome. I believe that they can be overcome, but the technical and legal work that is necessary to do that will have to be comprehensive.

Andrew Dismore: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. The Joint Committee on Human Rights first recommended the use of intercept evidence almost two years ago and has repeated that recommendation in a series of reports since then. Its use would bring us into line with international practice. Will my right hon. Friend consider releasing the public interest immunity plus work that has been done so far, as we have asked, which would inform the debates on this matter? Will he consider whether it is possible to include in the Counter-Terrorism Bill enabling powers to proceed with this issue should it be possible to do so at an earlier stage?

Gordon Brown: That was not the recommendation of the Chilcot report. When I met the membership of the committee, we had a detailed discussion about some of those issues. If we said that enabling legislation could be introduced before we had reached a solution to some of the problems that had been raised, we would raise false expectations that we had such solutions. Those solutions still have to be found, and the legal and technical work still must be done. Obviously, whatever information can be made available to the Committees of the House of Commons will be made available. When my hon. Friend looks at the report in detail, he will find that the Chilcot committee is not recommending that we rush ahead without having done the legal and technical work but that we do that work before we make a final decision.

Sammy Wilson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the increased security threat posed by the dissident IRA groups in Northern Ireland and the sophisticated criminal gangs now operated by former paramilitaries. The police in Northern Ireland have said that the use of intercept evidence would be very useful to them in stamping out the crimes associated with such activity. Given that the security services are now carrying the main responsibility for intelligence gathering in Northern Ireland and that policing and justice are not devolved, can the Prime Minister explain why, if intercept material is to be used, its use will apply only in criminal cases in England and Wales and will not be extended to Northern Ireland?

Gordon Brown: This is a recommendation of the committee, in the first instance, in relation to public interest immunity certificates. That is why, for example, the use of such material could not be applied immediately to Scotland, but I will consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Martin Salter: The Prime Minister is aware that the Home Affairs Committee, in our all-party report on counter-terrorism, concluded that intercept evidence should be used in terrorism trials. However, we also concluded that on its own it was no substitute for other measuresin other words, it was no silver bulletand that those other measures could include an extension of pre-charge detention for a temporary period and only in exceptional circumstances where the security services were overwhelmed by multiple plots.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The committee investigated that issue and concluded that the use of intercept evidence does not alter the necessity for control orders. Nor does it preclude a debate about an extension of detention beyond 28 days. I am grateful for the work of the Home Affairs Committee, which has reported on these matters on two occasions, and made the case for precautionary action in view of what it believes may happen in future. The issue is whether we can find an agreement that not only recognises in principle that it is right to move forward, but leads to a practical scheme to which everyone can agree.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome today's statement. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the official Opposition will have the opportunity to nominate a Privy Councillor to the working party? What would happen if the prosecuting authority were determined to use intercept evidence but the intercept agency had different views. Who would have the final say?

Gordon Brown: In my statement I did read out that one of the conditions outlined in the Chilcot report included, Giving the intercepting agencies the ability to retain control over whether their material is used in prosecutions, so it is clear that the committee acknowledges that the key which unlocks the possibility of using intercept evidence is held in the first instance by the security agencies. I think that, on reflection and on reading the report, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that that is the right conclusion. It is one of the tests that have to be met. Of course we welcome the nomination of a Privy Councillor to the committee, and we will agree on that.

John Spellar: I welcome the report and the Government's response but may I express some concern at the response of the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be following the shadow Home Secretary in arguing that this is all simple, straightforward and easy, whereas the Chilcot report suggests the contrary? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the very desirable objective of catching and convicting terrorists is balanced against the equally desirable and necessary objective of preventing terrorist outrages in the first place, whether at home or abroad?

Gordon Brown: I have said that we will do nothing to put the security of our country at risk or, as I have said directly to them, to put in jeopardy the work of our security agencies. In common with my right hon. Friend, I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that it is only a matter of political will. The committee makes it absolutely clear that there are considerable legal and technical challenges that must be overcome. That is why we will work in detail on an implementation regime. I believe that we can move forward, but we must not underestimate the real issues that have been raised by the Chilcot committee, which must be dealt with.

Evan Harris: Does the Prime Minister accept that the committee indicated in paragraphs 49, 59 and 210 of its report that there was potential for a limited or modest increase in the number of prosecutions, although he did not make reference to those recommendations in his statement, and that if that is the case, then taken together with post-charge questioning and the use of the threshold test by the prosecutors, that must decrease the justification for an increase in pre-charge detention?

Gordon Brown: I do not accept that. In some cases, the use of intercept evidence will make it necessary for the police to have a longer period assembling evidence. As for his point about my not mentioning to the House any studies that have been done, I did mention the Metropolitan police study, which said that the chance of successful prosecutions in terrorist cases was increased from 88 per cent. to 92 per cent. That is a limited rise in the number of prosecutions, but we must take it into account. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to confuse the debate about the use of intercept evidence in a court with the problems that the police have in assembling evidence given the complexity and sophistication of terrorist groups in the first place.

Margaret Moran: I welcome this review, which I seem to recall the Leader of the Opposition railing against a few short minutes ago. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this further work will include consideration of the complexity of the technology, data sharing and safeguarding issues, which are currently extremely confused, not only in terms of security but of the public services? Does not that complexity add to the argument for greater pre-charge detention time to enable the intercept evidence to be more closely and forensically analysed to secure evidence and thus the security of the UK?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in this matter. It is important to recogniseit is sometimes misunderstood in debate in the House of Commonsthat in principle all parties have said that there is a case for going beyond 28 days' detention; it is just the vehicle by which we go beyond that which is an issue. The Liberal and Conservative parties thought that they could support the proposals put forward by Liberty, which meant that there were circumstances in which we could go beyond 28 days. The issue then, having accepted in principle that it may be necessary to go beyond that limit, is the nature of the mechanism by which that can be agreed. At the moment, the Conservative and Liberal parties cannot agree with the proposal that we have put forward, but I have to tell them that in principle they have already said that they agree that it may be necessary to go beyond the 28-day period.

Patrick Mercer: I welcome the consensus that has been reached on intercept evidence. I absolutely understand the safeguards that need to be put in place and the comments that the Prime Minister made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright). The fact remains that in the 1980s I was a practitioner of intercept in Northern Ireland; this issue has been around for a very long time. May I urge the Prime Minister, please, to make as much speed as possible with this, because the interception and prosecution of terrorists and the deterrence of terrorist crime is so important, as he knows?

Gordon Brown: Let us remember that for all these 20 years intercept has been used; it is just that it has mostly not been used in courts of law. The question now is whether we can establish a scheme that will work. We have already agreed that the British system is unique and that the scheme cannot simply be one taken off the shelf from other countries. I believe that all the parties now agree that certain tests have to be met. We are going to proceed speedily and comprehensively to answer those questions. I hope, like the hon. Gentleman, that we will be able to come up with a conclusion that is satisfactory to all parties in the House.

Point of Order

David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I have lived in Shettleston for almost 40 years. That area has improved greatly in recent years and the vast majority of local residents are decent law-abiding citizens. Was it therefore in order for the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) to appear yesterday at Celtic Park, in my constituency, without even having the decency to let me know he would be there? He then launched a damaging and vitriolic attack on the people of Glasgow in general and on Shettleston in particular, when everyone knows that it was 18 years of Tory Government that caused most of the city's problems, especially unemployment. Is there any way in which the right hon. Gentleman can be made to apologise to the people of Glasgow and my constituents?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. This is a difficulty that I am being drawn into regularly. There is a courtesy that applies to right hon. and hon. Members, by which they should notify the local Member of Parliament when they come into their constituency. That should be done at all times. That courtesy should be adhered to.

Race Relations (Election Candidates)

Keith Vaz: I beg to move
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exclude from the operation of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 certain matters relating to the selection of candidates by political parties.
	The United Kingdom is a diverse nation. A snapshot of what it means to be British today would surely provide us with a mosaic reflecting the many cultures, ethnicities and religions that make up our population. Post-war and post-colonial migration flows have enriched our country with more than just numbers of people. Every town, city and region has benefited from Leicester to London, from Wembley to Wigan and from Sunderland to Southall. It is not only the composition of our population that has changed, but the composition of our national identityour Britishness.
	The change in our national identity must be reflected in the way we think of ourselves as a country, represent ourselves to others and, most importantly, in the composition of our Parliament. It is that change that must be reflected, and I intend to address it in my Bill. I am delighted to see the Leader of the House of Commons, who is also the Minister for Women and Equality, on the Front Bench because she has championed the cause of equality throughout her long political life.
	There are currently 15 ethnic minority Members of this House: 13 Labour Members and two Conservatives. As the House knows, the 2001 census reported a 50 per cent. increase in our ethnic population over the last 10 years. The lack of such representation in Parliament is therefore truly disappointing. If Parliament were to reflect adequately the population of ethnic minority citizens, there would be 58 ethnic minority Members of this House. At the current rate at which ethnic minority Members are taking up seats in Parliament, it would take 75 years to achieve a proportion that would reflect the ethnic minority population of our country.
	Since 1987, when I was elected along with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), Mr. Paul Boateng and the late Bernie Grant, progress has been painfully slow. There were two more ethnic minority Members in 1992, three more in 1997, two more in 2001, four in 2005, and five in by-elections over the last 21 years. It is not that there is a lack of talent, numbers or desire to come to this place, but it is clear that ethnic minorities still face proportionately more hurdles than others in getting elected to this House. This Bill seeks to address the problems of imbalance in representation through the democratic decisions of our political parties, but there is no miracle cure.
	The race issue does not have to be divisive; race can be used in a positive way to electrify the political process. Striving for the Democratic nomination in the United States, we have a candidate who embodies the multi-ethnic, multicultural and international character of its society: Barack Obama. Born to a Kenyan father and an American mother, and having spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, Senator Obama is a poster boy for the integration and amalgamation that has taken place globallythe mixing of cultures and consequent reforming of identities.
	The American system is, of course, different from ours. An individual in that country can seek and win their party's nomination at a local, state, and national level through their force of personality and their ability to secure funding. The party structure cannot stop them. In Britain, that is not possible; we have a strong party system. However, so far that system has delivered just 23 ethnic minority Members of this House in the history of British politics. Those dismal facts speak for themselves. We need to change our attitudes and the law so that a new vision can be made a reality.
	I would invite Members to look at what a change in the law did for the representation of women in Parliament. A few years ago, Parliament legalised all-women shortlists in elections. The result was that for the first time in history, there were more women in the new intake than men65 per cent. were women. All women-shortlists were described at the time as a hammer to break the glass ceiling. That ceiling now needs to be broken for ethnic minorities. The changes in 2002 highlighted how shortlists allow us to take a step ahead on the road to a more equally representative Parliament. Since the election of Nancy Astor as the first female Member of Parliament, 290 women have taken up seats. That is, as I am sure the House will know, not even half of a single parliamentary intake.
	The Bill proposes to allow for the creation of shortlists on the grounds of ethnicity in the selection of parliamentary candidates. It will be a voluntary, optional means of addressing the imbalance we see today, and it will not oblige or compel parties in any way. Positive action is achieved by exempting the selection of candidates from the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. Clause 1 will insert a new clause in the 1976 Act, exempting registered political parties from the main provisions of that Act, provided, of course, that that process is adopted for the purpose of reducing inequalities for the different ethnic groups from which individuals are elected. Clause 2 allows for the exact same provisions to be made in Northern Ireland, aside from one difference, namely that it allows for this process to apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to district councils, as well as to elections for the Westminster and European Parliaments. Clause 3 is a sunset clause, which provides that the Act will expire in 15 years' time, unless extended by an order of the Secretary of State.
	Some may argue that a problem exists regarding which boundaries and terms can be used to define an ethnic minority. I can assure the House that ethnic minorities know exactly who they are, and so do the political parties; they will be well able to identify them. The creation of ethnic minority shortlists will undoubtedly see more ethnic minorities taking up seats in Parliament, which will mean a Parliament that mirrors the society it represents, a Parliament that citizens can identify with and a Parliament that better reflects their needs. It will encourage many more to engage in civic society and afford them a greater sense of belonging.
	In the 21st century politics of our country no one must be left out. The Bill will allow parties to be more creative in the way that they choose parliamentary candidates, while remaining an optional, not compulsory, measure. The Conservative party already has a fast-track system, called the A-list, which, only two weeks' ago, produced a black woman as a successor to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Organisations such as the 1990 Trust and individuals such as Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote have long campaigned for more equal representation, and on the need to address this deficit in our democracy. The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) has also informed me that he supports the Bill.
	This Bill is merely the beginning. I do not pretend that it is a long-term solution but it is the one thing we can do today that will bring about a speedy change. We must target both ends of this problem. The ball is now firmly in the court of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), and their respective political parties. With the selection of parliamentary candidates for the next election well under way, the Bill is a wake-up call for the political parties. We have waited long enough. It is time for more action and less talk. Let us begin the process of change, and let us start now.

Philip Davies: I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I must oppose the Bill. I am a member of a fine organisation called the Campaign against Political Correctness. In my maiden speech, I made it clear that, in my time in Parliament, one of my aims was to try to speak out as often as possible against the scourge of political correctness, which is taking over too much of our country.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) knows that I like and respect him in equal measure[Hon. Members: But?] There are no buts. I hope that he will reflect on the irony of the fact that he, as a campaigner for many years on racial equality, has stood up in Parliament today and asked the House to exclude matters from the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. He goes against something for which he has campaigned for many years.
	We must imagine our reaction if a Member of Parliament tried to introduce a Bill to provide for exempting the selection of candidates from the Race Relations Act so that we could have white-only short lists. The right hon. Gentleman would rightly be up in arms about any such proposal. I do not see any legal or moral difference between a white-only short list and an ethnic minority-only short list. The Bill constitutes good, old-fashioned positive discrimination, which is just that: discrimination.
	The right hon. Gentleman may argue that people from an ethnic minority have, in the past, faced discrimination in the selection processes of all political parties. I do not know much about selecting candidates for the Labour party.

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not permissible.

Philip Davies: I apologise to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
	I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Leicester, East claims that people from ethnic minorities face discrimination from Labour party selection committees. That is a sad reflection on today's Labour party.
	If people from ethnic minorities have faced discrimination in the past, that is unacceptable, but my solution would be to remove the discrimination. Surely the answer cannot be to discriminate against other people in favour of those from ethnic minorities.
	I believe in equality. Surely true equality should mean selecting people on merit, irrespective of their racial background. Selection meetings should be colour blind and people should not think, Shall I pick this person simply because of their colour? I believe in equality of opportunity, but I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's desire for equality of outcome.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked of a Parliament that mirrors the society it represents. I hope that he understands what that means. Part of our society is made up of dangerous criminals. Is he arguing that a proportion of Members of Parliament should be dangerous criminals? The Bill constitutes a slippery slope.
	The measure would make race relations in this country worse. It would build up needless resentment that otherwise would not exist. All hon. Members should get here under the same process. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to speak to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies), who is, as usual, in his place. That once safe Labour stronghold was obliterated in one election simply because the Labour party insisted on picking a female candidate rather than drawing up a short list that would mean selecting the best person for the job. Consequently, the Labour party lost the seat. The Bill may be counter-productive rather than helping to achieve the right hon. Gentleman's objective.
	I hope that the Government will not follow the route of political correctness and try to gerrymander selection processes to provide a specific outcome. I strongly believe in the principle of selection on merit, on a colour-blind basis. Once we start picking people on the colour of their skin, we have a big problem in our society.
	 Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business [Interruption.] My apologiesI have been too quick. Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Keith Vaz: I have waited a long time for this, Mr. Speaker.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Keith Vaz, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Marsha Singh, Ms Dawn Butler, Jeremy Corbyn, Harry Cohen and Mr. Virendra Sharma.

Race Relations (Election Candidates)

Keith Vaz accordingly presented a Bill to exclude from the operation of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 certain matters relating to the selection of candidates by political parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read the Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed [Bill 66].

Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) (No. 3)

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 January],
	That the Order of 28th January be further amended as follows: in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 4, in the third column:
	(a) for '4frac12; hours' substitute '3 hours', and
	(b) for '1frac12; hours' substitute '3 hours'. [Alison Seabeck.]
	 Question agreed to.

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4)
	  
	(4th Allotted Day)

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have bothered you on a couple of occasions with points of order about instruction, and you have ruled on that. I raised a similar issue yesterday with the Deputy Speaker, who told me that, if I raised a point of order on instruction, which is in motion 41, before Committee, it was too late in the day. I am now trying a little earlier. Can you advise my colleagues and me about what we need to do to make the instruction more selectable, if it has a defect, and whether we can use any other procedure to have it selected?

Mr. Speaker: The motion on instruction has not been selected. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a considerable time and he knows that my selectionor non-selectionis not for discussion on the Floor of the House. We have a Table Office and some of the best Clerks in the world with regard to parliamentary democracy. I reckon that the hon. Gentleman knows that by now. He would do best to go there for advice. The Speaker has a lot on his plate these days.

John Hutton: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market.
	I believe that the founding purpose of the European Union was to try to secure a lasting peace throughout our continent by establishing, first, a common market in the key industrial sectors that could drive economic growth, create jobs and raise living standards, and that could also bring European nations closer together and, in the process, replace decades of strife and war with a new era of prosperity and progress. I am glad to say that that has remained the driving force of the European Union.

William Cash: The Secretary of State just used the term common market, but does he accept that that is not the position today? It was, but it is not now, and those of us who believe in an association of nation states think that that was the most serious mistake made.

John Hutton: If hon. Gentleman will let me make my speech, I shall try to make the point in my own way. I am talking about the historical development of what started as a market and the way in which it has evolved into a wider economic and political relationship that has profoundly benefited the United Kingdom and the continent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own contribution later. I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity of doing so, because we are all looking forward to hearing his remarks againand again and again, probably.
	The fundamental purpose that I have set out has remained the European Union's driving force. Beginning as the European Coal and Steel Community, it has since expanded to take in more goods and more countries, and succeeded in achieving peace and clear economic and social benefits for business, consumers and citizens across Europe. I would hope that hon. Members from all parts of the House celebrate those achievements.
	The European Union is now the world's biggest single market, generating total gross domestic product of more than 12 trillion and comprising almost 500 million people. Since 1992, the single market has created more than 2.75 million extra jobs, led to a more than sixfold rise in foreign direct investment and increased trade by 30 per cent. By 2006, the single market had boosted GDP by an average of 360 for every person in the European Union. Eliminating border bureaucracy, for example, has slashed delivery times, reduced costs and opened hundreds of new export markets to British businesses both large and small.
	Nearly 60 per cent. of our total trade in the UK is now with other EU member states and around 3 million British jobs are linked to the export of UK goods and, increasingly, services to the European Union. British citizensall our constituentsbenefit from both a greater choice of higher quality goods and services at lower prices and stronger protections to guarantee their consumer rights throughout the European Union. Every year, EU investment helps to create and protect UK jobs and generates trade. Those who recognise the best interests of the British people have long realised that expanding the single market can be made possible only within a clear legal framework that establishes a new set of rules.

Mark Harper: I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of competition and the market, but why is the treaty a step forward, given that it removes the phrase free and undistorted competition from the legal framework, which is what the European Court of Justice will use when making decisions in important cases?

John Hutton: No, it does not do any of those things

Mark Harper: It does!

John Hutton: No, there is no weakening of the competitive framework of European Union law at all, and if that is the hon. Gentleman's point, he needs to go back and do his homework.
	We needed rules that would tackle restrictive practices, vested interests and hidden barriers to trade between member states. Qualified majority voting was the essential prerequisite in establishing that new legal framework. Without it, Europe would not have made the same economic progress that it has in the past 20 years.

John Gummer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Baroness Thatcher fought for qualified majority voting precisely because she knew that none of those matters could be carried through unless we all moved together? Is it not also true that qualified majority voting gives greater power to individual nations than the veto, because everyone else knows that they could be steamrollered if they do not join a common enterprise together?

John Hutton: This is a strange debate, but I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. My regret is that his views are not more widely held on the Opposition Benches, because if they were the United Kingdom would have a better prospect of securing more of the deals in the European Union to which he has referred. It is important that we learn the lessons of history. He was involved in a lot of the debates and discussions at that time. I pay tribute to him and to the work that Lady Thatcher did to pave the way towards progress in the European Union.
	Since the Single European Act, which introduced qualified majority voting to the single market in 1987 and to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred, the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties have extended qualified majority voting into new areas, helping, not hindering, the process of economic reform in Europe. Those treaties have all adapted and strengthened both EU institutions and the policies that support enlargement and extend the single market. It is now again clear that we cannot rely on structures designed for the EU 15 to help us fully reap the economic and political benefits that we believe an enlarged Europe of 27 member states offers. That is why we must ratify the Lisbon treaty.
	As our competitors continue to invest in their people, ideas and innovation, so should we. As there is still work to be done in opening up European markets to effective competition, we should concentrate on doing just that ourselves. It is for those reasons that I absolutely reject the view of those on the Opposition Front Bench that our response should be another period of introspection and constitutional navel gazing. That is the last thing that we should be doing, but it is exactly what their policy towards the treaty of Lisbon would inevitably involve. That approach would not create jobs, growth or prosperity, just years of fog and an inability to drive Europe forward. There is no benefit there for UK businesses, workers or citizens, just more time and taxpayers' money spent on debates that are already long past their sell-by date.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the essential components of a strong and effective single market is strong EU institutions that can regulate and monitor it, and that anyone who argues in favour of a single market without strong EU institutions is full of hot air?

John Hutton: I do agree with that. Although this issue is not the direct subject of our debate on the single market, the Lisbon treaty also significantly improves the functioning of the European Union institutions, with a new and stronger role for national Parliaments in particular, which many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have accepted as important. The Lisbon treaty helps us in all those regards.

James Clappison: In order to set the Secretary of State's remarks in context, will he give us his estimate of what proportion of UK law now comes from EU institutions?

John Hutton: I am not going to put a figure on that, for obvious reasons. [Hon. Members: Very obvious reasons.] Look, either we have a serious debate or we behave like this crowd of people on the Opposition Benches.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: No.
	We are talking about the single market today, so perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). It is probably true that the majority of the laws established to drive forward the single market have originated from the European Union. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government; indeed, I believe that he might have had something to do with these issues. Personally, I find the argument that because laws originate from Europe there is something intrinsically wrong with them an astonishing one. Those laws have helped British businesses. The fact that they originated in the European Union is therefore irrelevant.

Keith Vaz: To take the Secretary of State back to the substance of this debate, which is on the single market, is not the Lisbon agenda an illustration of how Europe has changed? For the first time, we have a set of benchmarks against which the success of individual nations' economic policies can be properly assessed. That did not happen before Lisbon. Every five years we go back and review those decisions, to ensure that nations are up to speed.

John Hutton: That is a strong and obviously correct point, which is why we particularly welcome the response to the Commission with respect to the single market review. Following what is happening and ensuring that people are delivering what they have said they will deliver is an important part of making progress.

James Clappison: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman nowperhaps I will do so laterbecause this is a shorter debate and I am anxious to ensure that as many hon. Members contribute as possible.
	I think that, in essence, we need to press on with the agenda of economic reform, using the provisions of the treaty, once ratified, so to do, but we cannot do that if our focus is always on reopening debates about the treaty. What possible economic or political interest to our country could be served by a future Government taking the view that the provisions of the treaty did not bind the United Kingdom or that the UK could not sign up to further improvements to the single market in future because the proposals were being taken forward under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty? Such an approach would paralyse any future progress for an indefinite period on future reforms to the single market. It would negate any influence that we might have in the Council and elsewhere. Sadly, it is the policy of the Conservatives, should they ever manage to win an election, to follow precisely such a course of action.

Peter Bone: I think that I understand the Secretary of State's very cogent argument. He says that we want to be more involved in the single market and in Europe, so is it still Government policy that we should join the euro?

John Hutton: We have set out our position on the euro on many occasions, and the position has not changed in relation to the economic tests and a referendum on the European Union. The hon. Gentleman graciously said that I am making a cogent argument, but I do not quite understand the point that he is trying to make.

Mark Todd: My right hon. Friend has indeed made a cogent argument on the power of the single market and our progress within it, which I very strongly endorse. Would he add to that the need to redouble our efforts at further reform of agricultural marketsan area where I am afraid that protectionism, quotas and other mechanisms proliferate?

John Hutton: I certainly believe that we need to press ahead with reforms in that area. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have repeatedly made it clear that we want further progress. I hope that other changes in the Lisbon treaty, particularly around co-decision making for the European Parliament, will act as further stimulus for such reforms. It is incumbent on us all, particularly in the context of the world trade round talks, to try to make further progress.
	I believe very strongly that Europe has the ambition, commitment and the talent to succeed in today's increasingly competitive global economy. It is absolutely time to deliver, and a ratified Lisbon treaty will help make it easier to do so.

Rob Marris: My right hon. Friend rightly refers to an increasingly competitive global economy. Will he confirm that article 118, which is on page 87 of the consolidated texts, refers to intellectual property rights, that this country has a fine tradition of design and innovation and that the protection of intellectual property rights both within the European Union and worldwide is particularly important for jobs in this country?

John Hutton: I agree absolutely. The single market has been an evolutionary concept. We have made significant progress, but there are still obstacles in the way of creating a truly single market in many areas, and intellectual property is one of them. I believe that the Lisbon treaty provisions will help take that debate forward. We have important safeguards on language issuesI shall come on to them in a few momentsand requirements for multiple language translations of patents, but there is no doubt that this is one important area where progress needs to be made. We will not make that progress without qualified majority voting. I am afraid that it is as simple as that. Given the range of experienced Ministers on the Opposition Benches, I hope that they would understand that rather fundamental point.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Secretary of State agree with Commissioner Verheugen's estimate in October 2006 that the cost to business of EU legislation and regulation was 405 billion a yearmore than some other estimates of the value of the single market? If he does not agree with the commissioner's estimate, what is his estimate of the burden to European business of excessive over-regulation, which is used as an excuse for the single market?

John Hutton: I am making a point about the virtue of qualified majority voting, whereas the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the regulatory burden on businessa genuinely important issue. I believe that there are some cases of over-regulation in some sectors in the EU, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been taking the lead in the debate in Europe about a totally different approach towards regulation, which emphasises the costs and the burdens on business in Europe. Impact assessments have now become standard practice in the EU, people have to justify a proposal for regulation and the benefits have to outweigh the costs that inevitably arise once it has been decided to regulate.
	There is, however, no way of achieving many of the goals we wantI would hope that we all share them, particularly in respect of the single marketwithout regulation, necessarily bringing some costs and regulatory burdens for employers. There is no way of pretending otherwise, but the European Union and the Commission have targets to reduce the burden of regulation, which is a welcome first step. I think that significant progress remains to be made, but in a sense the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not germane to my point about the benefits of qualified majority voting. That is my main argument today, yet the amendment to the motion and the amendments that we will debate later this afternoon would make it harder for us to make progress on single market issues in the EU.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) referred to article 118 and provisions on intellectual property rights, but I understand that Conservative Members want to ensure that we cannot proceed along the lines of qualified majority voting in those areas. I suspect that there will be a division of opinion among Conservative Back Benchers on that matter. It is striking to reflect on the extraordinary divergence between the rhetoric we hear in support of the single market and the content of the amendments, which would make it very difficult for us to make the further progress that we need.

Philip Hammond: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the European constitutional convention, the UK Government sought an exemption for intellectual property rights?

John Hutton: That is true [Interruption.] No, it does not lead to a collapse of my argument. The important point about the treaty is that it contains essential protections that will help us to deal with restrictive practices, particularly the insistence on language requirements. The treaty contains important provisions that will advance the arguments that I am making about extending and deepening the single market.

Peter Lilley: rose

James Clappison: rose

John Hutton: If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will allow me to make some progress, we can return to this issue later.
	We know that back in the days of Maastricht, the Opposition could not unite. The consequences of the Tory policy of fundamental renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty would, I believe, risk our entire membership of the European Union itself. Many Opposition Members in their places today openly advocate British withdrawal from the EU. That would marginalise us during one of the most important periods of reform to the single market.

James Clappison: rose

John Hutton: As I said earlier, the treaty does not make any fundamental changes to the legal basis of the single market, but it introduces a number of technical measures that could benefit UK workers, consumers and businesses even further. It includes a new protocol on competition policy, which I understand is the principal focus of the Opposition amendment to the motion. For reasons that I shall set out in a few moments, I believe that the amendment is wrong about the new treaty and the status of the protocol. It clearly betrays Conservative Front Benchers' enduring pathological dislike of the European Union and offers further proof, if any were needed, of why they should not be trusted with the responsibility of government.

James Clappison: rose

John Hutton: Articles 85 to 93 of the original treaty of Rome in 1957

James Clappison: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that it is fairly evident that the Secretary of State is not prepared to give way at the moment, so the hon. Gentleman must not remain on his feet.

John Hutton: I will give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere in a few moments, but I am anxious to make some progress with my speech.
	Articles 85 to 93 of the original treaty of Rome of 1957 stipulated that the Community should monitor and enforce free and fair competition in markets across Europe. With much of the legislation required to establish the single market already in place, the new protocol ensures that proactive competition will remain the major focus and driver of single market policy in the 21st century. The protocol states and confirms, as did the treaty of Rome, that establishing an internal market is a key objective of the European Union and that ensuring free and fair competition across the continent is essential to doing so. The protocol is legally binding and an integral part of the Lisbon treaty. As the treaty itself states:
	The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof.
	The wording of the principal treaty articles governing the regulation of competition in the European Union4, 27, 34, 81 to 89, 96, 98, 105 and 157are substantially unchanged by the Lisbon treaty, providing an additional layer of protection. Everyone in the House should therefore be clear that removing barriers to competition in the internal market will remain a fundamental part of the EU's task once the treaty of Lisbon has been ratified.
	The Lisbon treaty also expands the Union's objectives to include references to a
	highly competitive social market economy and free and fair trade.
	Under the terms of the treaty, the Union has a duty to promote those values in every area. The binding protocol on the single market embeds those principles still deeper into the European Union's agenda. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, for the last time, I hope.

James Clappison: The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way. While the provision has been placed in a protocol, where it will have such legal force as comes from being in a protocol, free and undistorted competition has been removed from the objectives of the Union and relegated to a protocol. Will he explain why that happened, and how the Government allowed it to happen?

John Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully the consolidated text of the treaty, and he needs to look at article 51, in which the position is made absolutely clear: the protocol has exactly the same legal effect as any other part of the Lisbon treaty. There is absolutely no basis of fact or law in his assertion that somehow including the provision in a protocol in any way involves a relegation of the issue governed by the protocol. If he has any doubt about that, he should look again at the treaty. He will also probably want to look at the provisions of the Vienna convention, as I have done in preparation for the debate, in relation to how international treaties are to be interpreted. He will find a clear exposition of the international law of treaties and how questions of interpretation in relation to preambles, annexes and protocols are approached. The rebuttal to the Opposition motion can be found in all those sources. The Opposition have misunderstood the legal basis of the protocol. That flushes out one of the most unpleasant aspects of the debate, which is the feverish hatred of all things European that permeates those on the Opposition Benchesand has come principally from those on their Front Benchwith some noble exceptions, although only one of them is on the Opposition Benches today.
	The European Commission, strongly supported by the UK Government, is now pushing ahead with implementing the single market review and the Lisbon agenda, both of which are based on the explicit foundation that Europe must continue to tackle anti-competitive practices and barriers to competition. The protocol will help us to achieve our priorities for the single market in the next decade. As Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner, said recently:
	I simply do not agree with the scaremongers who argue that the Protocol is the end of European competition law as we know it. The Protocol maintains in full force the competition rules which have served European citizens so well for fifty years.
	That is also the clear view of both the Law Societya very respected source of opinionand the Commission's own legal service.
	I referred to technical changes in the articles dealing with the single market made by the Lisbon treaty. Some of my hon. Friends have also referred to them. They all offer the prospect of further improvements to the single market, and can therefore be seen as having a beneficial, pro-reform, pro-enterprise effect on the single market. Amendments to article 47 introduced qualified majority voting on legislation to remove barriers to self-employed professionals working in other member states of the Union. The free movement of people is one of the four key foundations on which the single market rests. That further advances that fundamental principle, and will be of particular benefit to professionally qualified people.

Judy Mallaber: Preventing countries from competing unfairly by allowing their workers to be exploited is a key element in the free movement of labour. The minimum social provisions are important in that respect. Today, on the 90th anniversary of the introduction of women's suffrage, does the Secretary of State agree that any step that threatened the treaty and led possibly to opt-outs from the social chapter would be extraordinarily retrograde and would prevent attempts to provide harmony and free competition within the market?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. We have stood up consistently, along with others in the House, for a proper balance in the competitiveness agenda. A strong social dimension to Europe now and in the future is important. One of the best things that we did when we came into government was to sign the social chapter, as it demonstrated a clear commitment to developing that part of the European project. I derive a great deal of satisfaction, as I hope she does, from meeting constituents who have benefited from many of those provisions, which include holiday entitlement.

Paul Farrelly: On the social dimension, may I record my disappointment, and that of many of my colleagues, at the way in which the Government blocked a European directive on agency workers before Christmas? Does my right hon. Friend oppose the principle of equal treatment for agency workers, or is it simply a question of negotiating an appropriate qualifying period?

John Hutton: We certainly do not oppose the principle of equal treatment, as we have repeatedly made clear over a long period. The text of the directive was not acceptable to the United Kingdom and other countries in the Council, which is why it was not possible to reach agreement on 5 December. The UK Government remain committed to trying to find an acceptable text on which we can agree, and which addresses our concerns about flexibility, which is crucial for the UK to secure and develop. Our labour markets are widely respected as flexible and for providing proper protection for workers. I do not want to compromise on any of those issues.
	With those comments in mind, I cannot see the logic of Opposition amendment No. 145, which not only deprives UK workers of the potential benefits I have just outlined but would take a step backwards. If the Opposition had their way, they would not allow us to use QMV to develop proper protection for self-employed workers in the single market. That is not sensible. We should not take their advice on that or anything else in this debate.
	As many will know, the European social fund is investing 3 billion in the UK in 2007-2013 to help the unemployed and disadvantaged improve their job prospects and skills.

Peter Lilley: The Secretary of State says that he will take no account of any of our proposals. Would it not benefit the House, however, if he were to put before us all the positions taken by the Government on these and other issues in the convention on the constitutionthe motions tabled, the positions taken, the letters writtenso that we know the Government's original position? Is not that absolutely essential for informed debate in the House? It is available to some Members, but not to others. As a good House of Commons man, will he not say yes?

John Hutton: I always try hard to say yes to the right hon. Gentleman. His remarks, however, are principally about the old constitutional treaty, which has been abandoned. The process has been abandoned. We are debating the new treaty of Lisbonthe reform treaty. The House has ample opportunity to debate that, and I and all my Cabinet colleagues will debate it with him and others over the next few weeks.
	Crucial to the EU's success as a dynamic knowledge economy is the ability of our people to think, exploit and protect new ideas and innovation. The Community trade mark and design schemes have already proved highly popular with UK businesses, helping them to expand and safeguard their ideas in new EU markets. New article 97a establishes a legal base for the EU to agree measures to create European intellectual property rights and to provide uniform protection of IPR throughout the EU. Qualified majority voting will now apply to all aspects of the creation and administration of European IPRs, except for the issue of language requirements, which will still be decided by unanimity.
	Community IPRs can foster further investment in research, design and innovation. Based on precedent and our experience of 20 years in the single market, qualified majority voting is critical. It can help to ensure that existing community IPRs can be updated quickly and flexibly as technology, business and society progress. I hope that it will also help to unblock negotiationswhich have been stalled for many yearson the Community patent, and bring member states closer to agreement.
	We believe that the retention of unanimity for language issues is crucial to ensure that excessive translation costs are not placed on United Kingdom businesses applying for Community patents. In our view the translation of patents should be limited as far as possible, and unanimity voting will allow us to deflect any proposals that we consider damaging to business in that context.
	The introduction of new article 176A provides a specific article enabling discussion and agreement of EU energy measures for the first time. We debated those last week.
	The new text on the common commercial policy ensures that the EU can continue to lead in efforts to open markets and reduce trade barriers in the case of rich and poor countries alike. The new text gives more scope for the Community to negotiate and conclude wide-ranging trade and investment agreements of major benefit to member states with third countries. For example, the EU is currently engaged in trade and investment negotiations with countries such as India and Korea. Ambitious investment agreements would increase access to their markets for UK companies, creating new jobs and increasing trade. The text also imposes an obligation on the Commission to update the European Parliament on the progress of its trade negotiations, increasing the transparency of Community-level trade negotiations.
	UK business leaders have agreed that the Lisbon treaty will deliver a more effective, robust and efficient European Union to help drive forward measures such as the further liberalisation of the single market that are good for UK companies, workers and consumers. Sir Michael Bishop, chairman of British Midland Airways, said recently:
	The EU needs to be able to take decisions quickly and implement them consistently over the long term. That is why the amending Treaty is important to business and important for Europe's future.
	Bill Thomas, European president of EDS, has said:
	The new amending Treaty will ensure that we have dynamic EU institutions capable of promoting reform and delivering competitiveness and growth across Europe.
	The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). I prefer those views on the treaty to the views of Opposition Members.
	I fundamentally believe that, by moving us on from the endless discussions about EU institutional reform that some Members are so keen to continue, the Lisbon treaty can help us to build a Europe ready for the 21st century: a Europe focused on the issues that matter, such as jobs, growth, and open and competitive markets. It should be possible for Members throughout the House to agree on one thing, the absolute priority of strengthening the competitiveness of the European economy. That was made clear in the European Commission's fundamental review of the single market, published last year. The review reflected many of the policies and reforms for which we have been negotiating, including a new, flexible approach to single market policy to promote competition fully, reduce the burden of regulation, and encourage innovation. It focused on key priorities from which businesses and citizens can benefit together, such as further liberalisation of the energy and telecoms markets, the use of competition policy tools to reduce barriers for businesses, and allowing consumers to benefit from more choice and lower prices.
	The Commission has already introduced a system to monitor the market and ensure its competitiveness, enabling the EU to crack down on markets where there are still significant barriers to competition. Full liberalisation of European network industries in particular, such as energy, telecoms, post and transport, could bring an extra 52 billion to 66 billion to the EU economy, create between 140,000 and 360,000 jobs, and reduce prices significantly. Progressive liberalisation in the telecoms sector throughout the 1990s has already led to cheaper prices and more choice for EU consumers. Prices for national and international calls in the EU fell by an average of more than 40 per cent. between 2000 and 2006. I believe that it is time to build on that success, and to deliver even greater price savings and choice to business and consumers.
	We are also pushing for full and swift implementation of the services directive across the EU to make the free movement of services a practical reality. Services account for 70 per cent. of EU gross domestic product, but for only 20 per cent. of intra-EU cross-border trade. The agreement of a wide-ranging EU services directive was a major step forward in tackling that covert form of protectionism. Full implementation of the directive will make it easier for service providers to set up and deliver services in other member states, increasing access to new markets and consumer choice. It could be worth between 4 billion and 6 billion per year, and could bring about 80,000 new jobs to the UK economy.
	A truly enterprising Europe must slash the bureaucracy that holds opportunity back, and I am glad to say that ensuring better regulation is now a priority in Europe. The EU is working towards achieving its target of a 25 per cent. reduction in administrative costs, which will help to promote fair, open competition, empower consumers and encourage innovation, and which promises an increase of up to 100 billion in EU GDP.

Adam Price: The Secretary of State referred to the services directive, which applies to private sector services. Will he say a little about where public services fit into the internal market? Does he believe that the rules of competition policy and the principle of the internal market should be extended to include them?

John Hutton: Some of the issues have already been addressed in the European Court of Justice in recent litigation. I am thinking particularly of the Watts case, in which I was involved as a junior health Minister. The Lisbon treaty includes provisions relating to services of general economic interest as well, but it is clear that the prime responsibility for the organisation and funding of public services is a matter for member states rather than the European Union.
	There are provisions in the treaty that deal with important areas in which greater collaboration and co-operation could bring us advantages in Europe, relating to such matters as early warning of potential contagious public health hazards, about which I think we should be doing more in the European Union. There are border areas where people live very close to each other in parallel health jurisdictions. We should think about what we can do to improve cross-border co-operation in that context. That was the subject of the Watts case, and it is now part of European Union jurisprudence.
	The amendments that have been tabled to the Bill would exclude the prospect of any such developments. If we accepted those amendments, with which I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will deal very ably in a few minutes' time, we would not be able to make progress in those areas. We cannot do so if we do not agree the Lisbon treaty, and accept that in some areas qualified majority voting will work in the interests of the British people. That is the choice that we must face here today.  [Interruption.] I hear that lot on the Opposition Benches chuntering at my remarks. I always know when they do not like what I am saying: they start chuntering. I can hear them asking How will all these developments in the single market be secured? Those developments will not be secured if we take their advice. As I said at the beginning of my speech, they will not be secured if we go back to Europe and say We do not accept the treaty of Lisbon. We will not accept any further liberalisation measures if they are based on its provisions.  [Interruption.] That is clearly the position of Opposition Members. They have made it very clear. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) knows this to be true because he follows these debates, unlike some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. He knows that the position of the Opposition is precisely that. Those are the tactics that all these characters want to pursue. All these hon. Gentlemen

Bob Spink: rose

John Hutton: He is another of them. They have all made it clear that they want us to withdraw from the European Union.

Bob Spink: The Secretary of State referred to services, and I will come to those in a moment, but the point is this: will these changes actually help our constituents? The treaty extends the single market rules to new areas of financial services, intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment and possibly even sovereign wealth funds. Those would all come under the umbrella of the uniform principles for the first time, and that would damage the City of London, where thousands of my constituents work. Why should they have to put up with it?

John Hutton: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say gently to the Secretary of State that using such words as lot, characters and crowd departs from the normal nomenclature that we use in this place? It is probably best to keep to the usual.

John Hutton: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to say that they were very interesting characters. I am sorry if that did not entirely come across when I made the remark. Of course I have a great deal of respect for Opposition Members, particularly those who follow these debates closely. Obviously we do not agree on a number of matters, but I respect the way in which they have applied themselves to the issues.
	As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)and I have a great deal of personal respect for him as wellI think it would be sensible for him to make himself clear to the House too. He wants Britain to be out of the European Union, and that is the argument that he should be having with his constituents. This pussyfooting around, if I may put it that wayquibbling about this or that part of the treaty or the textis all camouflage. We know that from a wider analysis that he and others have made that Britain would be better off outside the European Union. That would be a total disaster for the United Kingdom. That is why we cannot accept his analysis and we certainly do not accept his amendments.
	None of the important objectives I have tried to outline would have any prospect of being realised if we took the advice of the Opposition and reopened the debate about the content and structure of the Lisbon treaty. It is clear that the UK's relationship with the European Union and participation in the single market have worked to our benefit in the past, increasing business, jobs and trade, but we will continue to benefit from these gains only if the UK is actively and fully engaged in the EU, making the case front and centre for changes that will benefit UK citizens and businesses. The choice Opposition Members face is either to do what is in the long-term interests of the British people and economyactively to engage in Europe to open up new markets and opportunitiesor to let their dogmatic dislike of all things European marginalise Britain in Europe, putting at direct risk the benefits of the single market and our economic future.
	I believe that the answer is clear. The Lisbon treaty gives an EU of 27 member states a solid foundation from which to move forward and tackle the challenges facing, and reap the opportunities that will be provided by, Europe in the future. On that basis, it must be ratified.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, To leave out from House to end and to insert instead thereof:
	disapproves of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market; notes that the Treaty proper now contains no reference to undistorted competition as one of the activities of the European Union, and indeed relegates to a protocol any mention of competition that is not distorted, with significant implications for the interpretation of European Union law; deplores the Government's failure to block this change during the negotiations; and is concerned that the result could be the revival of protectionism in the European Union wholly contrary to Government policy and damaging to the interest both of the United Kingdom and of the European Union..
	People are rightly angry about many aspects of the Government's handling of the treaty of Lisbon: their incompetence in negotiating on Britain's behalf; the casual way in which Britain's self-interest has been abandoned by those charged with protecting it; and above all, the breach of trust with the British people in refusing to hold the promised referendum. However, amid the concerns about the impact of the treaty on matters such as foreign and security policy, justice and migration, relatively little attention has been paid to the way in which one of the best and most successful elements of the European structure has been consciously relegated to the sidelines. The purpose of our amendment is to change that.
	For 50 years, the creation of what was first called the Common Market, then the single market, and now the internal market, has been at the heart of the European Economic Community and subsequently the European Union. Underlying it was the simple proposition that economic collaboration between the nations of Europe delivers prosperity, and prosperity delivers peace. Now, quite deliberately and with the connivance of the British Government, this treaty downgrades the objective of an open and competitive single market from its place at the heart of the EU's agenda to an obscure protocol tacked on to the back of the treaty, and it undermines at a stroke one of the undoubted successes of the last 50 years, and just about the only bit of the EU structure that enjoys almost universal support.

Ian Lucas: Article 3, paragraph 3 of the consolidated treaty states:
	The Union shall establish an internal market.
	It is there in black and white. What is wrong with that?

Philip Hammond: I did not hear the word competitive in what the hon. Gentleman read out. I know he is a lawyer, and if he will just bear with me I shall come on to the detail of the words that have been included and those that have been left out.

Si�n Simon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I will in a moment, but I want to make a little progress first, to try to avoid the trap that the Secretary of State fell into.
	The Opposition seek to strengthen the Union in its pursuit of the single market, not, as the Secretary of State has suggested, to undermine that process. Nothing could be more calculated to damage the EU in the medium and long term, and to undermine the prosperity of the member states as they face the challenges of the 21st century, than the symbolic downgrading of the central place in the EU's structure of the open competitive single market.
	This Government stand accused of a sell-out of truly historic significance. It is a sell-out based not on malevolence, but on sheer incompetence. What we have heard today from the Secretary of State is a breathtaking dose of complacency and wishful thinking.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) that the treaty referred to an internal market but not a competitive one, as if there were another kind of market. Article 3, paragraph 3 talks about
	a highly competitive social market economy.
	It is a market, and a competitive one. What other kind of market is there?

Philip Hammond: The treaty as currently drafted refers to a social market economy, but reference to undistorted competition has been relegated from the body of the treaty to the protocol. That is important. [Hon. Members: Good.] Some Members say Good, so there we have it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Philip Hammond: If Members will allow me, I shall deal with this specific point in detail shortly.
	The constitutional treaty, like the budget and the rebate before it, has involved a process in which the Government have through their own words and deeds showed that they understand full well where the lines needed to be drawn. They recognised precisely where Britain's vital interest lay. As with the budget negotiation, however, faced with defeat at the negotiating table, instead of digging in and using the vetowhich is there precisely to defend our national interestthey rolled over. So now Government policy is to argue that black is whitethat the changes they sought to make in the constitutional convention are unnecessary and that the dangers they warned of are non-existent. That is a complete sell-out: it is a capitulation in the area of EU law that is arguably more important to Britain than any otherand in exchange for nothing.
	I shall quote President Sarkozy in the course of my remarksnot necessarily with approval, but I will say this at the outset: I fundamentally disagree with the Sarkozy vision of the EU, but I do not doubt for one minute that he has pursued what he genuinely believes to be the best interests of France, and I respect him for thatfor defending, however mistakenly, the interests, as he perceives them, of the people he represents. Our Government, by contrast, know that the single market based on free and unfettered competition needs to be at the heart of a prosperous Europe. They set out to achieve that objective; they argued for it and tabled amendments in defence of it, all of which was perfectly honourable. But when the chips were down, they failed comprehensively.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman talks about President Sarkozy sticking up for his country. The European structural funds were made available to help not only all countries, but all parts of all countries. In the 1980s and 1990s, previous Conservative Governments failed to draw down on objective 1 funding, especially for Wales when they were decimating the mines and the steelworks, and seaside towns such as Rhyl and Prestatyn in my constituency. They failed to claim that objective 1 funding. It was delivered by a Labour Government in 1998.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman wants to fight the battles of 20 years ago, but I think most people want to deal with the futurethe future of Europe, and of Britain's place in the competitive world order.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the changeswhich are cosmetic in my viewin terms of competition in the Lisbon treaty. Will he accept that the protocol on the internal market and competition has identical legal force to the rest of the treatythat is spelled out in the treaty itselfand says that the internal market
	includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,
	which is the precise wording of the treaty of Rome? Will he also accept that the protocol, in what I think is a new provision, refers explicitly to the enhanced powers of European institutions
	under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
	if they are needed to achieve the goal of an undistorted competitive single market? He is simply wrong in the point he makes.

Philip Hammond: On the contrary, the right hon. Lady is simply wrong. Yes, the protocol has the same legal status as the body of the treatyI accept that without disputebut I shall show in a few moments how the European Court of Justice interprets European treaties when it makes decisions, and the trap that we are walking into by relegating this measure from the body of the treaty to the protocol. I shall quote to her what those who have pressed for this change have said. They have not pressed for the removal of these provisions from the body of the treaty to a protocol as a cosmetic change; they have pressed for their removal as a substantive change to the body of European Union law.
	To cover their humiliation, the Government embarked on a duplicitous attempt to conceal the scale of the defeat. First, they resolved to deny the referendum that they had promised the British people, because it would have exposed the gap between the rulers and the ruled. They then created a smokescreen of red lines and emergency brakes, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has brilliantly demonstrated is a meaningless charade of flannel and smoke that offers no durable protection. We have heard yet more flannel and smoke from the Secretary of State today. I suppose we should be grateful that he remembered to bring his flannel and smoke with him to the Chamber this week; we should be grateful for something.
	Depending on which authority we follow, we know that the treaties are between 90 and 98 per cent. identical to the aborted constitution. It is ironic that one of the few changes made between the draft constitution and these treaties is the relegation of the concept of unfettered competition in the single market from the heart of the structure to the periphery. Instead of making a stand for the principles of economic liberalism, which he repeatedly claims to espouse, the Prime Minister slunk off to Lisbon, almost literally in the dead of night, and looking every inch like a man engaged in a furtive and shameful little mission, to sign the treaty and sell out the interests not only of Britain, but of millions of Europeans whose prosperity will now be put at risk.
	Let me explain why people's prosperity will be put at risk. In 1957 a genuine single European market, on its own, would have ensured Europe's prosperitybut this is 2008, not 1957. At the beginning of the 21st century the single market, which after 50 years of progress remains far from complete, can only be part of a much larger global picture. We now have to look outwards and further afield. Our need is for a single, open, free, lightly-regulated and competitive market in Europe, not only for its own sake but to act as a base from which European businesses can compete effectively as part of an open world trading system. If we are to prosper, not only in our home market but in the wider world market, the EU single market must be open by virtue of the absence of barriers to competition, not by virtue of a heavy-handed structure of managed and regulated competition. Conservative Members are not prepared to see Britain's prosperity being dragged down into the quicksand of over-regulation and economic nationalism. Our future lies in engaging with, not resiling from, globalisation.

William Cash: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend is saying, but may I just qualify one point? Is it not possible that we could use the word Europe in the broader sense to achieve the degree of co-operation that we all genuinely want, rather than the legal straitjacket created by the structure to which he referred, the European Union?

Philip Hammond: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his case in due course. My purpose is to demonstrate that the Government know very well what is in Britain's interest, and that although, to their credit, they went out to fight their corner, they did not do so very well, they have comprehensively lost the argument, and Europe, and Britain in particular, face serious consequences.

Rob Marris: rose

Philip Hammond: I shall give way in just a moment. We have heard before, and again today, that none of this matters. The right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) referred to the changes as cosmetic, but she is wrong: this does matter. We have heard that whether words are in article 3 of the treaty or in a protocol at the back is irrelevant, but it is not. The change of direction represented by the symbolic relegation of the endorsement of undistorted competition from the opening articles of the treaty to a protocol at the back does matter, and those who fought for it know that. It matters because if Europe is to prosper, much work remains to be done on the completion of a single, open and competitive market; it matters because of the political signal sent and received about the future direction of EU economic policy and its subordination to social policy; and it matters because of the legal significance of the treaties in the EU's system of jurisprudence and, in turn, the impact on how our own courts interpret the law.

Doug Henderson: I think I followed the hon. Gentleman's argument. He says that he wants unfettered free competitionso why does he oppose the treaty provisions that extend qualified majority voting on energy?

Philip Hammond: We have been around this loop before. We want an open and competitive European market, and a strengthening of the thrust for competition to be the driving force in determining the direction of the single market. I contend that the Lisbon treaty contains a clear political and judicial signal that we are moving in a different direction.

Rob Marris: rose

Philip Hammond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will just bear with me. I shall deal with three issues, the first of which is the challenge of completing a genuine single market.
	In 2000, the Lisbon strategy set out the aim of making the EU
	the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world
	by 2010. Last year, the Secretary of State's Department conceded that the Lisbon goals remained a far-off aspiration. The Lisbon strategy's own website notes:
	Weak competition in many markets, especially in network services including energy, continues to hold Europe back.
	The Government recognise the need for improved access to capital, lower prices for businesses and consumers, and the liberalisation of the network industries if we are to compete effectively internationally. The Department estimates that liberalisation of the network industries alone could add 1.7 per cent. to Europe's gross domestic product. We urgently need a more efficient, competitive and integrated market, but the chances of achieving that are receding as this treaty takes form.

John Hutton: I hope that hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to the following point, which I was trying to make in my speech. One of the changes made by the Lisbon treaty is to move the single market provisions into that treaty; future proposals will be made under the provisions that we are debating today. I understand that his party's position is not to accept the validity of the Lisbon treaty, even if it is ratified by this House. How, then, will he react to future proposals to improve the single market made under the Lisbon treaty? He says that improving that market is his objective, but clearly he will not be in a position to accept any such proposal, will he?

Philip Hammond: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that his party was committed to demonstrating the legitimacy of the Lisbon treatythe constitutional treatyby putting it to a referendum of the British people. He has resiled from that commitment, and I believe that the Government will pay a high price for doing so when the electors eventually get their opportunity to vote.
	The fact is that protectionism is alive and well across the EU. Whether we are talking about French yoghurt, Spanish electricity, Austrian steel or Italian banks, EU Governments are doing their utmost to protect their prized domestic industries from the threat of foreign competitors, predators and Anglo-Saxon liberalisers, including the right hon. Gentleman. It was Charlie McCreevy who said what we all know:
	in reality, many countries give lip-service to open and free competition.
	Never has the tension between the need for free and undistorted competition in markets and the EU's social, cultural and political aspirations been clearer. Never was there a greater need for a clear recognition that without the prosperity that a single, open and competitive market can deliver, the other aspirations will remain just that. Never was the need for the concept of competitive markets to be at the heart of the European Union greater than it is now, when it is being relegated to the margins. What the EU needs right now is a strengthening, not a weakening, of its focus on competition at the heart of everything it does.

Several hon. Members: rose

Philip Hammond: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) because of his persistence.

Rob Marris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's usual generosity. I want open competitive markets, but I object to the use of the word undistorted because it denotes that a state of perfect competition can be reached: it cannot. He talks about unfettered markets and so on, but I want markets with certain fetters. I want fetters so that we do not send schoolboys up chimneys to clean them and so that we do not have unguarded machinery at work. I want people to have that kind of social protection. I find the concept of undistorted competition ridiculous on the grounds of both economics and social protection. I want open and competitive markets, but undistorted is a nonsense word.

Philip Hammond: The word is undistorted, not unfettered, and I am coming to the political signals sent out by the treaty on the role of competition in shaping the EU. After 50 years with a clause enshrined at the front of the treaty relating to undistorted competition, we still do not have anything like it. What kind of signal is the Secretary of State sending by relegating that provision to a protocol?  [ Interruption. ] Well, the term used is competition without distortion.
	The signals that are being sent are deliberate and strong, and they strike at the heart of the cause of free and open markets and thus at the interests of the United Kingdom. The high-profile removal of the reference in the draft constitution to
	an internal market in which competition is free and undistorted
	was the first blow. The replacement of the existing treaty wording, setting as an objective for the EU the promotion of
	a high degree of competitiveness
	by the new objective stating that the EU shall work for
	a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress,
	was a second, representing a significant dilution of the free market agenda. The controversial concept of a social market economy makes its way into an EU treaty for the first time. We are seeing the elimination of competition as an end in itself. The relegation of any reference to
	a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted,
	found in article 3 of the existing treaty, to a protocol is a third blow.
	The revised Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives exclusive competence to the EU for
	establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of an internal market.
	The EU itself will be left to judge how much competition is necessary to achieve the objective of
	a highly competitive social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress.
	That is a recipe for conflict, fudge and fiddle, if ever there was one. The Government argued vigorously against exclusive competence, but again they were defeated.
	By these steps, an unambiguous political signal has been sent: the aim of competition per se is relegated, and competition as an idea is subordinated to other objectives of the Union. That is a clear and humiliating defeat for the Anglo-Saxon liberal approach to the marketplace that Governments of both persuasions in this country have advanced for a political generation.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is strongly in favour of a high degree of competition. The Secretary of State explained to him that the treaty brings the development of the single market, the furthering of competition and the effective working of the single market into the treaty. The hon. Gentleman remains committed to abrogating that treaty in all circumstances. How does he then propose to develop that market in practice, rather than in purely rhetorical terms?

Philip Hammond: We have heard from the hon. Gentleman and from the Secretary of State what the Government think. They can argue until they are blue in the face that all of this is of no great significance, but that view is not widely shared, especially by those who have fought long and hard to downgrade the competition provisions. They believe that they have won a great political victory.
	For example, President Sarkozy, magnanimous as ever in victory, has said:
	competition is now just a means, not an end in itself. This opens the way to a different jurisprudence, one that favours European champions and brings a true industrial policy.
	In other words, he foresees a market managed by political deals. That is not a model of European collaboration that will bring prosperity to the British people, and ultimately it is will not bring prosperity to the French people, either.
	The Commission gains a raft of new powers to act unilaterallyfor example, to enact regulations relating to agreements between undertakings, to regulate permitted state aid and to rule on the legality of national restrictions on movements of capital. The internal market becomes a shared competence, which under a new definition means that member states will not be able to legislate at all in a space where the EU has legislated. They will be unable to legislate in a way that conflicts with the EU, and that would include legislation to address matters of temporary national interest, or to supplement EU law. Britain's veto over regulations on the establishment of self-employed professionals is scrapped. The European Parliament gains vetoes over liberalisation of services and capital movements. International trade becomes an exclusive competence of the EU as far as it is defined by treaty provisions. In all those areas the UK Government fought to hold the line or secure exceptions. In every area they lost the battle, and now they seek to argue that nothing has changed.
	How the Commission and the Parliament will use their new powers is an open question. It is possibly the understatement of the decade to say that it is by no means obvious that they will use them to promote free competition. I, for one, suspect that President Sarkozy's vision of an industrial policy of picking champions will have an irresistible appeal in Brussels.
	What is clear is that at the end of the process a strong political signal has been delivered and the EU's approach to the development of the single market will change. It will be more interventionist, less focused on free and open competition and more focused on picking winners, imposing strategies and enforcing other EU social objectives through the regulation and manipulation of the marketplace. Only a rejection of this treaty by the British people in a referendum can now reverse that momentum.
	Finally, I turn to the legal implications of the changes to the treaty and the impact that they will have on EU jurisprudence. The Secretary of State said that there were none, and that nothing would change. But there are serious concerns that the changes to the treaty will undermine the political and constitutional support for anti-trust action by the EU and will inevitably have an impact on the ECJ's interpretation of EU law. It is true that the protocol has the same legal force as the treaty itself, but the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties emphasises the importance of objective and purpose as a guide to the interpretation of treaties.
	The ECJ has developed a purposive interpretation tradition to deal with conflicts. In other words, it considers the objectives and purposes of the Union in deciding which of the conflicting arguments should be given greater weight. In relation to how the Court conducts itself, it is a simple matter of fact that no mere protocol can achieve the same interpretative status as an article of principle or an objective in the treaty itself.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman asserts that as a fact. Can he point me to a decision of the European Court that confirms that?

Philip Hammond: I had not intended to cite specific decisions, but it appears that I will have to. A 1999 decision in the Albany International case shows how fatal the relegation of this issue to the protocol will be [ Interruption. ] Of course that decision was not about a protocol, because the provision was not in a protocol then. In that judgment, the ECJ noted that article 3 of the EU treaty required both
	a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted
	and
	a policy in the social sphere.
	It set to work to resolve the conflict on the explicit basis that both were objectives of the Union as set out in the article 3 of the treaty. Now one of those objectives will be removed from the opening articles of the treaty and put in a protocol on page 199. The Secretary of State wants us to believe that the ECJ will give the same weight to the statement in a protocol to the treaty as it gave to it when set out in leading articles of the treaty.

John Hutton: Only 10 minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman accepted that the protocol had exactly the same effect as any provision of the treaty.

Philip Hammond: A protocol does have the same legal status as the rest of the treaty. My point is that in pursuing the purposive interpretation tradition, the ECJ will look at the purposes and objectives of the Union, as set out in the preamble and the leading clauses of the treaty. I do not believe that the Secretary of State, who I believe is a lawyer by training, finds that concept as difficult as he is making out. Time will tell. We will see how the ECJ interprets decisions in the future in the light of the changes in the treaty. I hope that the Secretary of State will have the good grace, in due course, to come back to the House and accept that there was rather more to the changes in the treaty than the cosmetic effects that he has sought to set out today.
	The Commission has based its attack on illegal state aid on article 3, paragraph 1(g), read in conjunction with article 10 of the EU treaty. The Court has held that provision elsewhere in the treaty must be interpreted by reference to the purposes expressed in article 3, concluding that public subsidies, whether or not they are apparently sanctioned elsewhere, are illegal if they distort competition, because that is the objective set out in article 3. There is a concern that the ECJ may find it difficult even to maintain the current position on state aid set out in existing case law, because it is all built on article 3, paragraph 1(g), of the treaty as it stands.
	That was clearly in Sarkozy's mind when he said that the final form of the treaty
	may also give a different legal direction to the Commission. That of a competition that is there to support the emergence of European champions, to carry out a true industrial policy.
	Some member statesno names, no pack drillthat fought for these changes have made no secret of the fact that they will seek to use them to expand the scope for legal state aid on social and social market grounds, to permit mergers on industrial policy grounds and to resist pressures for market liberalisation, particularly in energy and network services. I bet that there are people on the Government Benches who would welcome all those things.
	It remains to be seen how precisely the changes to the treaty in the area of competition policy will be interpreted and used in practice by the Court, the Commission, the European Parliament and the member states. However, I can say this with some degree of certainty: the Government's suggestion that nothing has changed is dangerously complacent and out of line with expert opinion and with the views of most of our European partners.
	Let me quote Sarkozy again:
	We have obtained a major reorientation of the objectives of the Union. Competition is no longer an objective of the Union or an end in itself...The word protection is no longer taboo.
	The Government have allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred, outwitted and out-negotiated. After 50 years, the pursuit of a single, open competitive market has been relegated to the back burner and subordinated to the other objectives of the Union. The one undisputed success of the EU is now at risk, and with it the Union's already dubious place in the sentiments of the British people. At a time when Europe needs to become more competitive, more liberalised and more open to the world, it is set to become less competitive, more inward-looking and more protectionist. To their enduring shame, the Government have acquiesced in that process, knowing that it was wrong and that it was neither in Britain's interest nor in Europe's interest.
	The Government's policy in respect of the treaty and its impact on the single market is not merely incompetent and complacent, it is contemptible and duplicitous. I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now.

Frank Dobson: I confess that I approach this matter from the opposite end of the spectrum to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). A major part of my job as an MP is to try to promote prosperity and fairness in our society and, as a Labour MP, to protect and enhance the interests of the worst-off people in my constituency and in the country as a whole. In that respect, I welcome our Labour Government's acceptance of the social chapter.
	I am extremely concerned about recent developments in the EU, and in particular about the application of fair and open competition in the internal market to health care. The EU treaty as it stands states that on health:
	Community action...shall complement national policies.
	It goes on:
	Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.
	The Lisbon treaty updates that, I suppose, and states:
	Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them.
	Appearances would suggest that our national health service is and will remain the exclusive responsibility of the UK Government, but it is not and, under the Lisbon treaty, it will not. All the apparent protection for our sovereignty that was provided in the old and new treaties does not exist. It turns out that some parts of the treaties are more equal than others.
	In a recent ECJ decision, now followed up by the European Commission, the neo-liberals who hold powerful positions on the Court and the Commission decided to open everything to do with health care up to internal market forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Watts case in 2006, which the British Government lost in the ECJ. The Court found that a patient from this country was entitled to be treated in another European country and that the NHS was obliged to pay the Bill. The patient was not in despair after a protracted wait for treatment in the UK. The patient's daughter was pushing the primary care trust to provide the European care before the GP had even referred the patient to a consultant. The Court's decision was therefore made in worship of the internal market, in blatant contradiction of the treaty protections that I have read out.
	Worse was to come. In December last year, the European Commission produced a draft directive in which it asserted that competition would drive down costs in health care. We should ask whether that works in the US. That directive, as draftedbefore it was withdrawnwould have meant that the British Government would have no say whatever in setting any limits on the provision. People would be entitled to get treatment in Europe. They would be given a voucher or, after they were treated, what they spent could be repaid. They would also be able to top up any costs with their own money. I cannot see why the Tories did not welcome that, because it is exactly like the patient passport proposition that they put to the country at the last general election, which was so roundly rejected and, we are told, has been abandoned as a policy.
	When the ECJ decision was made and when the European Commission produced its latest document, Tories from this country in the European Parliament said that it was absolutely right. I was rather shocked to discover that the Liberal Democrats welcomed it, describing it as health tourism. I want to try to look after the least well off and the least well informed, but the decision of the Court and the proposal from the Commission will clearly give a leg-up to the well off and the well informed, disadvantaging everyone else. The well off will be able to afford to pay in advance and wait to be reimbursed. They will be able to afford to make a top-up payment if they need to, and to meet the cost of travel. Badly off people will not be able to do any of those things. The well off are also likely to be well informed and to know how to work the system.
	I cannot possibly support the proposal before us today, and I am very dubious about supporting a treaty that has not done something to set aside the Watts decision. I should warn the House that I think that there are very powerful forces at work behind the proposition, and they are in this country now. Those forces are the US health corporations that are having such a bad time in their own country. They have made such a gratuitous mess of the health care system there that even the most right-wing Republican presidential candidates are calling for wholesale, root-and-branch changes. They want to ensure that every American is covered and to prevent costs from escalating even above the present level which, roughly speaking, is twice as much per head of population as anywhere else in the developed world.
	However, the mess in the US is so great that the companies to which I have referred are roaming around Europe and Britain looking for markets. They are promoting the concept of competition in health provision which, if it is applied in the way set out in the European directive, is likely to be greatly to the disadvantage of the worst off and least informed people in this countryexactly the people to whose interests all Labour MPs should give a high priority. I shall therefore find it very difficult to vote for the treaty's ratification unless the Government make some concession to that effect.

Vincent Cable: I had assumed that there would be quite a high degree of consensus on this part of the treaty debate. After all, as the Conservative spokesman conceded in his peroration, we are talking about the single area that almost everyone accepts represents an achievement on the part of the EU. Equally, the six provisions in the treaty relating specifically to economic matters are not especially controversial. They do not apply to the euro and, weak though they are, they are broadly helpful to the UK where they apply to intellectual property rights and self-employment. The other major provision relates to social security and is governed by veto, so the economic clauses do not contain an enormous amount to get worked up about.
	The Sarkozy change is one issue of controversy, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) managed to make a half-hour speech out of it. He massively overstated his point, but I happen to agree that it is unhelpful in the extreme that economic nationalisation should have emerged, in France and elsewhere. In addition, the concession made by the British Government may be symbolic but it is rather damaging.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made it clear that absolutely nothing has changed legally, and that was helpful. Even so, the concession represents a step backwards in political terms, and that is why we have tabled some amendments to ensure that that aspect of the treaty is monitored as it proceeds.

Rob Marris: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) decried President Sarkozy for saying that competition should be a means and not an end. I do not agree with President Sarkozy about many things, but in this case I do. However, the Tories seem to see competition as an end in itself, thus making a fetish of what is a means to greater prosperity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to make competition an end in itself is economic reductionism of the worst order?

Vincent Cable: Of course competition is a means rather than an end, but the French President is seeking ends that are based in economic nationalism. Most of us feel that that is extremely unhelpful in the context of the economic union.
	The Secretary of State spoke about the fundamentals of the single market, and he was right to begin by emphasising that the single market is the bedrock on which the EU is built. It is the EU's greatest success, and it underpins the rise in living standards that we all enjoy. The common market, followed by the single market, has attracted and sustained the membership of countries from southern and eastern Europe, permanently liberating the first group from fascism and the second from communism.
	Those are major achievements, and we should underline the major contribution that the single European market makes to the UK economy. We often take it for granted, but roughly 63 or 65 per cent. of British visible exports now go to the EU, compared with 43 or 45 per cent. in the mid-1970s. The EU market represents some 40 per cent. of total world trade, so it is an enormous entity into which we are fully integrated. Britain has benefited disproportionately from the very large amount of inward investment in the single market that has taken advantage of its unified characteristics.
	Those are major benefits, but I often meet people who would be described as EuroscepticsI am talking about people old enough to have been able to make their choice in a referendumand they say, We voted to join the common market, not for silly political things like square tomatoes, straight bananas and abolishing double-decker buses. From the outset, we must acknowledge that the establishment of the common market and the single market had very far-reaching implications for how we do things. They include many of the things that people often do not like but which are the flip-side of the benefits.
	Let us remind ourselves of how the EU is structured. The simplest base is the free-trade area. Superimposed on that is a customs union, and on that a common market that involves freedom of movement of people and capital. That freedom of movement explains why so many foreigners have come heremore than 600,000 from eastern Europe alone. However, we should also recall that 750,000 Brits have gone to the south of Spain and 300,000 to France. No doubt they are regarded in much the same way as we regard the eastern Europeans

Frank Dobson: Only they're no good at plumbing.

Vincent Cable: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The Brits are good at buying houses, but not at plumbing.
	On top of all that, there is the competition policy that is essential for cross-border mergers and monopoly relationships. We need to have a discipline governing state aid, and finally there is the single market. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) helpfully reminded us of the major contribution made by Lady ThatcherMrs. Thatcher as she then wasin introducing the single market. She was acting on the advice and encouragement of Lord Cockfield, who was the real inspiration behind the move.
	It is worth recalling what the then Prime Minister said, as in no sense was she naive about the implications of the single market. In her diary, she wrote:
	British business would be amongst the most likely to benefit from an opening up of other countries' markets...The price which we would have to pay to achieve a Single Market with all its economic benefits...was more majority voting in the Community.
	She therefore understood very clearly the price that had to be paid if the objective of a single market was to be achieved.
	Similarly, it is inherent in the creation of a single market that there is more harmonisation. That can often be very irritating and produce slightly absurd consequences, but it has to happen. Anyone who has been involved in the standardisation process more generally, such as through the International Organisation for Standardisation in Maastricht, will know that there has to be a degree of harmonisation if meaningful markets are to be achieved.
	The classic case is the square pin plug that does not fit in round sockets. At some point, people have to agree that there has to be interoperability and that means that there has to be harmonisation. However, harmonisation can be frustrating, and it imposes some of the regulatory costs about which the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was complaining.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and fair analysis, but he has not yet mentioned one of the crucial problems. I voted for the Bill that created the single market when it had its Second Reading in this House, but I said:
	The European Court of Justice will be involved...Who will control it all?[ Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 379.]
	The same question arises in connection with the matter that we are discussing today, and for the same reasons. However, the accumulated functions and the acquis communautaire have made the cost of over-regulation intolerable, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was right to say that the European Commissioner had put that cost at 450 billion a year.

Vincent Cable: I will come on to the cost of regulation later. Of course there has to be an arbiter, because there will obviously be disputes. That applies to all international organisations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a global liberal in an economic sense, will accept that the World Trade Organisation has to liberalise trade. It has dispute panels, and bodies comparable to the European Court of Justice that make rulings in much the same way as the ECJ does. That is the only way in which trade can proceed.

Mark Hendrick: On bringing in common standards, does the hon. Gentleman agree that harmonisation has meant that lots of different standards in different countries have been torn up, particularly in many western, developed EU countries? National regulation has been removed and European regulation has been introduced. In eastern European countries, where there was no regulation, standards have been raised as a result. Some standards have been lost as harmonisation has taken place, but some standards have been raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a plea for short interventions? There is precious little time left, and a number of hon. Members are seeking to speak.

Vincent Cable: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick).

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that common markets that did not set up a firm institutional base with a court have been almost stillborn? Common markets need such a base if they are to work.

Vincent Cable: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. In my earlier professional career, I tried to help establish common markets in Latin America and Africa. All of them failed because they lacked strong institutional underpinning. The European Union is the one that has succeeded. Of course, that underpinning does not have to be rigid; one of the major innovations that is not referred to in the treaty, but which has become part of Commission practice, is what is called mutual recognitionrecognition that we are gradually deepening the single market through mutual acceptance of other countries' rules. That is why there is now mutual recognition of professional qualifications, for example. That does not have to take the form of blanket harmonisation. Those moves are progress.
	I shall cite a few topical recent examples of Commission and Court rulings that have taken forward competition policy and the single market in a common-sense, practical way to the benefit of consumers. First, the European institutions stood up to the credit card companies on the charges that they imposed on shops for clocking up credit card transactions. The Office of Fair Trading had a go at the companies, but it was the European Union that really made the big difference to consumers.
	The European institutions tackled the monopoly that British Airways and Virgin had on transatlantic flightsan issue that no British Government had been willing to deal withand opened up the low-cost airline business. We may have doubts about that business for environmental reasons, but from a consumer point of view it was a major advance.  [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is trying to prompt me to say, there have been considerable advantages on telephony, as a result of roaming charges, and before that, there were many significant advances on telephone costs. Those are all achievements of the single market concept.
	The European institutions also stop Governments doing foolish things. I am tempted to mention Northern Rock. Of course we can all criticise what the Government are doing, and the press will do so, but the one institutional constraint on the Government's aid to the bank is the European Union. That is what is binding the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he is totally constrained by the EU. Those are some of the many practical ways in which the single market benefits us.

Mark Pritchard: I accept what the hon. Gentleman just said, but does he accept that if we signed up to a single monetary policy, there would be greater restraint on future Governments, whether Labour or Conservative?

Vincent Cable: Or Liberal Democrat, for that matter. Yes, there almost certainly would be greater restraint, but I think that we all accept that that is not the debate that we are having now. I think that all parties are committed to having a referendum on that possibility, if it arises in future, as it may well do.
	Of course there are concerns about the single market. First, many UK businesses worry that their liberalisation is not reciprocated. A few days ago I was at Royal Mail's south-west London sorting officea very efficient installation. When I looked out of the window, I saw the headquarters of TNT, a Dutch competitor. The general manager said, I'm all for liberalising the Royal Mail market, but why can't the Germans, the Dutch and the French do the same? and he is quite right. The logic is that prising open the other European markets will require stronger, not weaker, intervention by the Commission and the European Court of Justice.
	Precisely the same point can be made about areas in which there is frustration about the slowness of the single market's progressa point to which the Conservative spokesman referred. The obvious example is services. It has taken years to get any kind of agreement on services in Europe. The agreement that we reached in 2006 is fairly weak; it does not respect the underlying principle of the origin of the country concerned, which is what would really open up a services market, which does exist. Clearly, for services liberalisation to progress faster, there would have to be more qualified majority voting and more European Union decision making on the matter.
	Finally on the single market, the right hon. Member for Wells said that all progress has come at a priceat the cost of regulation in Europe. He is right up to a point. There is a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy associated with European regulations and directives. Of course, we have often compounded it by gold-plating them here. The Secretary of State was right to point out that there is now a processthe Lamfalussy processfor making the system much more efficient. The question that I would pose to the right hon. Member for Wells if he was still in the Chamber is this: what is the counter-factual case? What is the alternative to having a bureaucratic regulation? It is probably having 27 bureaucratic regulations across Europe, which would compound the cost many times over.
	Let me briefly cover the items allocated for today's debate, and the treaty powers relating to economic matters. The euro procedures clearly do not apply; I answered an intervention on that point. Other issues include the definition of the framework for commercial policy, which I do not think is controversial, and the co-ordinated approach to self-employment. I would have thought that such an approach was sensible. We have rules governing freedom of capital and professionals, but not self-employment, as would be logical.
	The issues to do with intellectual property rights are trickier. As I understand it, the measures will make it easier to have common European Union rules on copyright, trademarks and patents, which will make it easier to do business that involves them, and that will be good for British intellectual property right holders. However, as the Secretary of State conceded, when it comes to patents, the tricky issue of language has not been resolved. We will still not have unanimity, and that is a source of frustration. As the author of the Cable Billthat famous copyright protection legislationI look forward to seeing copyright protected across the whole of Europe, in a way that accords with the sanctions that I introduced in the House. Those are not issues on which there is a great deal of controversy.
	On the important contribution made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), one of the less discussed issues is that of what are called general services, of which the NHS is an obvious example. My understanding of the protocol governing the treaty is that it does not take us very far towards a common approach to NHS entitlements. In fact, article 2 of the protocol says:
	The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest 
	The basic principles of the NHS would therefore remain pretty much intact, as I understand it.
	However, I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman to some degree. He was right to say that the Liberal Democrats were sympathetic to the Watts ruling. The question that we would ask is this: if it is right for people to buy a house, travel or exchange goods in Europe, what is wrong with their trying to pursue a higher life expectancy in countries that have better cancer treatment? Surely common sense would say that that is a reasonable expectation in an integrated market. People will do that, and as long as the basic frameworks of the NHS remain intact, I do not see anything fundamentally wrong with enlarging the concept of a single market to include health.

Frank Dobson: If someone buys a house in Europe, they are spending their own money. If someone gets NHS treatment in Europe, they are spending somebody else's money that might have been spent in the national health service.

Vincent Cable: That is absolutely true, but the right hon. Gentleman was also questioning people's ability to spend their own money, was he not, through co-financing? That is a much bigger debate, and I understand the sensitivities around it. We share a commitment to the British national health service, but we also want choice to be extended.
	Finally, I shall deal with the issue on which the Conservative spokesman spent so much time: the threat to the competitive market within Europe presented by the Sarkozy approach to national champions. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is right to stress the current spasm of economic nationalist thinking about energy companies and so on, not just in France but in Spain and Italy and sometimes in Germany and elsewhere.
	We should not be totally self-righteous about this. We have had and continue to have national champions of our own, but they take a different form. The debates that I have tried to provoke in the House on BAE Systems relate to a British national champion where politics and commerce have become rather dangerously intertwined. We should not be too pious on the matter, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there was a retreat from a commitment in the treaty to an undistorted internal market.
	The objective legal position remains very much as the right hon. Member for Leicester, West said: we have exactly the set of rules governing the single market and competition policy that prevailed before. Neelie Kroes, the Dutch Liberal who presides over competition policy, has spelled out clearly where we currently stand. The protocol on the internal market and competition which was agreed at the European Council clearly repeats that competition policy is fundamental to the internal market. It retains the competition rules that have served us for 50 years, and reaffirms the European Commission's duties as the independent Commission enforcement authority for Europe. Nothing formally has changed, although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is right that there is a change of mood that is potentially worrying and it is right to signal our concerns about that.
	In conclusion, it has always been understood that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are strong supporters of the European project. We are not uncritical. There are areas where we have fundamental disagreements. We have been critical of agricultural policy, particularly its protectionist features. We have been critical of the European budget and voted against it a few weeks ago. We believe that there should be more subsidiarity, including in areas of social policy, which should not be prescriptively applied at a European level. None the less, the fundamentals of the European project are sound, they are reflected in the treaty, and that is why we support it.

Nia Griffith: The single market is central to the European Union. We know that in the 1950s the forerunner of the European Union grew out of the agreements between France and Germany for the benefit of their coal and steel industries. Fast-forwarding to the early 1990s, we eagerly anticipated the advent of the single market, with its principles of the free movement of people, goods, capital and services. Inevitably, that cannot be achieved Harry Potter-style by the wave of a magic wand on a single date. It is a process of slow evolution, and the treaty that we are debating today is one further step in that process of evolution.
	I remind the House how much we depend on the single market3.2 million UK jobs are dependent on exports to the rest of the EU, and some 550 million-worth of goods and services are exported every day to other EU countries. Some 63 per cent. of our exported goods go to other EU countries. Without the customs union that the EU single market provides, those markets would be much more difficult to access.
	The creation of the single market has cut companies' overheads and much of the red tape, especially if one compares the difficulties of exporting to non-EU markets. It also ensures that EU countries recognise one another's product standards. That means that UK manufacturers can save on the considerable costs involved in retesting and modifying products to meet specific standards required in non-EU countries.
	One would expect more services to be marketed to people in their home countries; nevertheless, some 40 per cent of services exported by the UK go to the rest of the EU. A large amount of foreign investment from other EU countries also comes into the UK. The EU provides a better deal for consumerswe have lower prices and less red tape, we have full consumer rights when we go shopping in another EU country, and we have fairer competition.
	Of course things are not always right, and there will always be details that we want to work on further. For example, we know that work is being done on roaming charges for mobile phones. We know, too, about the energy market in which there has been some liberalisation but where some aspects are still not right. One domestic problem that we have is the tremendous disparity between what a poorer household pays for electricity and what a richer household pays, based on the difference between payment for electricity on a meter and payment by direct debit. There will always be problems that we need to put right, but the structures are in place to allow a pan-European approach to resolving them.
	We hear a good deal about migration. We hear about the thousands of EU migrant workers who have come to the UK and who make a valuable contribution to our economy, but we often forget about the 1.6 million Britons who are living in other parts of the EU. They go there for various reasonsfor work opportunities, to travel and broaden the mind, because of family ties, or simply because they enjoy the climate. The main countries that they like to go to are France and Spain.
	We may have an image of such people being rather privilegedpossibly top company executivesbut travelling back by boat from northern Spain on a stormy Christmas eve one year, I met numerous people who were working in Spain and coming home for Christmas. What were they doing out there? They were plumbers, painters, builders and all manner of small business people who were making a good living in another EU country. They were immensely helped by the single market in so many aspects of their working lives. Even though they encountered Spanish bureaucracy, which is a law unto itself, they were grateful for the many issues that they were able to sort out much more easily because of the single market. All together, we make 51 million journeys to other EU countries, and 21 million visitors come to the UK. Tourism is an immense source of income for us.
	People criticise EU legislation but we have benefited from it. Without legislation from Brussels, we would have to legislate about the same issues in this place, so it is a help to us and it can even out the differences and the competitive disadvantages between EU countries. We have the right to 20 days' annual leave. Our pensioners can claim their pensions in mainland Europe. We have minimum standards of paternity and maternity leave, and equal pay and protection against discrimination in the workplace. All those important advances have been brought to us through the single market and EU structures.
	Objective 1 status has been a tremendous help to us in Wales. It represents the principle of resourcing less advantaged areas that are often disadvantaged precisely because of their geographical location on the periphery of the EU, as opposed to the motor regions of France, Germany, northern Spain, northern Italy and the southern part of the UK, which are nearer the centre. Objective 1 money has provided immense benefits to Wales. For example, more than 3.2 billion of investment has been made in west Wales and the valleys in all sorts of projects, such as the techniums, which attract and nurture small businesses and provide opportunities for local people to develop their own businesses or attract investment from outside. In Llanelli the extraordinary task of clearing away a huge coastal area of derelict industrial ground, cleaning and restoring it and preparing it for new state-of-the-art factories has been possible with the use of EU funds.
	I conclude with a few words from Giscard d'Estaing, who has not yet been quoted in today's debate.

Mark Francois: Not today, but once or twice before.

Nia Griffith: Indeed. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) did not let me intervene on him in the previous debate during which that individual was mentioned. Apart from speaking about the constitution and the treaty, Giscard d'Estaing also stated clearly that
	Britain has also been allowed to be the odd one out whenever it feels like it.
	That is an important feature of the treaty: we can have our cake and eat it. We have got what we want from the negotiations. That is why I commend the treaty to the House and I will not vote for the amendment.

John Gummer: We have to be very careful about being curmudgeonly about the European Union. The truth is that we are all immensely better off because we are a member of it, and the single market is the key part of that. No single market works unless justiciable responsibility is accepted; there has to be a court that makes decisions. Sometimes we do not like its decisions and sometimes we do, but the court is part of what is necessary if the thing is to work.
	We have to recognise that the European Union has changed other countries significantly more than it has Britain. We always talk as if Britain has had to change. I declare an interest: I have done business in France for 40 years. That means that I know about the enormous changes that have taken place in France because of its membership of the European Union and because of the single market.
	We have the curious view that somehow or other we are a sort of victim in this. One of the reasons for that is, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has said, that Governments of both parties have talked about going to Europeas if it is somewhere else and we are not in itand discuss it as if they always had to go there for a battle. The truth is that we go there to sit round a table and make decisions together. Historically, we could either not make such decisions or had to fight to make them.
	We should be much more willing to be enthusiastic about the successes of the European Union so that we can improve it. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they would be more credible if they showed enthusiasm for the good things and then went on to say that they would like to improve the European Union. I would like to improve it a good deal. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) that I do not understand his argument at all. If we exclude people from making choices in the European Union about the bits of his choosing, we will only open the gates to the protectionism of, say, the Frenchand exclude other things. The deal is for all of us, and all of us have to accept it.

Frank Dobson: The existing treaty and new treaty provide that there should not be a European Court of Justice intervention to overrule the protection for health care systems in respect of considerations of the internal market. My objection is that if that is in the treaty, the court should be bound by the treaty.

John Gummer: I have always believed that courts have to make decisions on the facts put before them; the bits that we get are often very partial. I prefer my constituents to have more opportunities rather than fewer. For many years, I have been seeking in the House to extend them.

Michael Connarty: rose

John Gummer: I think I should go on. I say to my hon. Friends in particular that their arguments sometimes compare the European Union with perfection, as if there were a perfect alternative. I merely suggest that although the European Union is not perfect, the alternative is very much worse. A comment was made about having 27 different sets of regulations rather than one, and that was perfectly reasonable, particularly as we are largely at fault because we have gold-plated almost every EU regulation. The recent arguments about what might have happened with Northern Rock show that the very issues raised were issues gold-plated by this Government, not by the EU itself.
	My experience of environmental issues suggests that the single market has benefited us considerably and that many of our most important decisions would not have been made without the pressures of the EU. If anyone really thinks that we would have had a proper water system in this country if we had not signed up to the water directive, they do not know the history. People can certainly not argue that we could have a clean air or clean water policy, within which the single market has to operate, if there were no EU.
	We have to be a bit serious about the effect of the changes. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who referred to the symbolic concession made by the British Government. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) explained what he said experts thought of the matter, but his quotation was not from experts, but from Mr. Sarkozy. That is like explaining the Iraq war by quoting Mr. Blairwe are not talking about an expert, but about someone who is parti pris. I want to look at independent sources. Mr. Sarkozy was putting forward his case, as politicians do. I would much prefer to listen to the Law Society, which clearly tells me that the change does not water anything down. It is symbolic; I think it a pity that it was made and that the Government did not argue well enough, but the fact is that fundamentally there is no change and nobody should be worried about the treaty as far as a single market is concerned.
	We should recognise that if we want to change and improve the single market, that will mean Britain agreeing to do things together with others so that together we can create a more effective market. Instead of complaining about that, we ought to be out there explaining why it is worth while. It is better for my constituents that they can travel and know that there are the same standards of health and hygiene throughout the European Union. It is better for business men in my constituency to know that they can trade in the EU and that the standards are the same. Above all, it is because the EU is the world's largest single market that it can get the terms of trade that we need in the world, and that is so important to us.
	Having been president of the Agricultural Council, I have negotiated on the international trade in agricultural products. I can tell the House that the agreements were made between Europe and the United States. The other countries made speeches, but the decisions were made between the world's two biggest trading units. Anybody who undermines Britain's membership of the EU undermines our ability to play a proper part in the international trading arrangements on which we, of all nations in the world, depend most.
	Some of my hon. Friends ask, There's a bigger world out therewhy do we concentrate so much on Europe? I say to them simply this: in the European Union we have a voice in the formulation of trading policies that enables us to create the conditions in which world trade is carried out.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is making a cogent case for his point of view, with which I do not agree. Given what he has said and all the advantages that he claims for this great European Union, why is the gross domestic product of European nations, in aggregate, plummeting?

John Gummer: The one advantage that I have over my hon. Friend is that I am in business, have been in business and continue to be in business. He says that the GDPs of member states are plummeting; I say to him that outside the EU they would reduce significantly more. Any business man will tell him that. My hon. Friend's theory would destroy Britain's ability to trade within our largest trading unit and, more importantly, its ability to arrange the terms of trade in a way that was beneficial not only to the whole of Europe, but to Britain in particular.
	I would simply say to my hon. Friend that, if he wants to relegate us to the edge of the world trading systemwhere we would constantly have to place our future in the hands of other people and play no part in deciding how our future was regulatedthen let us do what he wants. Let us make a so-called free arrangement, with none of the systems that enable us to make such decisions. I direct him to  The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that I read every morning. It said recently that it was the European Union that was laying down the terms under which trade took place, and making the decisions on the environment that were laying down the environmental terms under which people were increasingly manufacturing.
	I say to my hon. Friends that we can interpret the term social market in two different ways. I hope that they do not really believe that competition is the only issue. No one could be a stronger supporter of competition than I, but I do not want competition that means that the Bangladeshis do not get proper payment for their work. I do not want unsafe factories to undermine British businesses. Competition must exist within a sensibly regulated market. That is what we have always believed. That is what one nation means. It means that we believe that competition drives the market

William Cash: Europeone nation.

John Gummer: The one nation that I was referring to, as my hon. Friend knows, was that of Disraeli, who was not talking about Europe. I am not keen on my hon. Friend trying to put into my mouth words that he knows perfectly well I have never said. I would just remind him that the one nation principlethe principle that we are together trying to raise the standards of all of usapplies more widely in the European Union, because we want standards to rise there, too.

Doug Henderson: The Lisbon treaty does not change the original single market very much. There are some technical points, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) drew our attention, about definitions in the main treaty and in the protocol, but the single market itself is not changed dramatically by anything in the treaty.
	I know that, in a debate that is structured like this, Oppositions have to try to table an amendment that relates to the issue, and I know that the Opposition have tried very hard in this regard. However, they have not been very successful, except at incriminating themselves, because the only term that catches my eye in their amendment is undistorted competition. We have already heard exchanges on that subject between the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and me. What we have learned from this debateand we might learn moreis that we are beginning to understand more about the Conservatives, the single market and the European Union itself.
	The main thing that we are beginning to learn is that the Conservative party today does not understand what is on offer. I exempt from that observation the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who made his position very clear. I agreed with almost everything that he said about a modern Britain in a modern European context. The rest of the Conservatives who have tried to take part in the debate have, however, failed to be precise about what they actually stand for.
	The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to want no regulation at all in the European Union, and to send the kids back up the chimneys. He seemed to want a kind of pre-mercantile anarchic capitalism, if there is such a thing. I know that some members of the Conservative party want a customs union, and some of them might want a common market. I have to say to them, however, that none of those things is on offer. When the Conservatives talk to British business and British work people about what is on offer, there is no point in talking about pre-mercantilism, anarchic capitalism or customs unions, because they do not apply.
	What is on offer is a single market and a social market. We cannot have just a single market. I think that most Members on both sides of the House want a single market, but, if that is what we want, we also have to agree that there is a social market. The Conservative partyalthough not all Conservative party membersare now pretty much isolated in the whole of Europe. Apparently, it has only one ally, which is some right-wing fringe party in the Czech Republic. That is the only party with which the Conservative party is prepared to sit down and talk about common positions before entering into negotiations in the European Union.
	Some Conservative Members have been here before. I see the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has been in the European Union and knows how negotiations take place. One cannot build alliances only with fringe parties in the Czech Republic if one is going to represent British business

Mark Francois: The party to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is the ODS, which is the party of Government in the Czech Republic. Is he saying that the Czech Government are a fringe party?

Doug Henderson: If the hon. Gentleman is accurate, it is one of the coalition parties in the Government, and it is considered to be a relatively fringe party. That is the view that I have picked up, and I am sure that it would be confirmed by anyone else in the European Union. It is not akin to a main conservative party in Germany, France or suchlike.

Mark Hendrick: I support what my hon. Friend is saying. The ODS is a fairly new, right-wing party. Does not that show the degree to which the Conservative party is going off the rails? The main conservative parties across Europethe Christian Democratic familyaccept the economic dimension of the single market, the social dimension that the European Union now has, and the political dimension that has come with the development of the European institutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I say that although we have a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches, an awful lot of Members are still trying to catch my eye and it would be helpful if any hon. Members feel that they can take less than their allotted time.

Doug Henderson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This hon. Member will feel able to take less than his allotted time.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). The tragedy for the Conservative party's relationship with British business is that British business knows that the party is off the rails but does not know where or how it is off the rails. The Conservative party cannot face up to the realities of modern-day participation in Europe, as British business has to. British business and the people who work for it have to face up to the realities. Would Nissan in Sunderland, or Sanofi Aventis or Nestl in my constituency in Newcastle, have any trust in a Conservative Government with such an unclear and, where it is clear, negative policy towards Europe? When there are issues that matter to themin Nestl's case, the sugar agreement negotiated by the European Unionthey want to know that the British Government can sit down cogently with other Governments and other parties throughout Europe to find a negotiated solution that is sensible for Europe and sensible for British interests? If companies such as those were considering investing in Britain, before doing so they would think about it very seriously were there a Conservative Government with a policy as unclear and as negative as that of the current Conservative Opposition.
	All those things are very damaging, not only for the Conservative party but for British industry. One thinks back to the days of Macmillan and Heath. In Heath's time, I used to attack the Conservative party for being too close to British business. It is miles away from British business now, with no comprehension of what is entailed in trying to build a product, trade within Europe and seek investment from Europe.

Michael Connarty: rose

Doug Henderson: I am not taking any more interventions, as I promised Mr. Deputy Speaker that I shall not take my full time.
	In the short term, it is crazy to believe in a competitive economy and not to accept the fairly modest changes in the Lisbon treaty to extend liberalisation through qualified majority voting in the energy marketsthat is vital for the companies that I mentioned but also for everyone elsein telecommunications, where Britain has a fairly strong role and it would definitely be in our interests, and in financial markets and services. In the long term, were I speaking on behalf of British business generallyI am speaking only on behalf of businesses in my constituencyI would worry that a major political party in Britain has such a low commitment to the European Union that it puts at risk all the benefits that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and which are available from the single market.
	All those companies and all the people who trade in Europe recognise that by any sort of definition of a civilised industrial scene, it is not possible to have a single market without a social market. Both are taken together, and then we look for reform. It is important to reform them both so that they both work effectively.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). I do not agree with everything he said, but he is extremely well informed about this subject. It is also a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), with whom I am in complete agreement on these matters. It has been a strange debate because, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North illustrated and implied, we have had a general debate about the single market and its history, rather than line-by-line consideration of the changes that the Bill makes, which is what we were promised.
	There is another reason why this debate has been strange. Perhaps we should rename it the Lady Thatcher debate, because her achievements in introducing the Single European Act and the single market have been lauded throughout the House. There is now a consensus. Thinking back, I cannot remember Lady Thatcher being decked with garlands of praise by the then Opposition. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members might be provocative in the debate, but I have quotes of what they said at the time. I will not use them because I do not want to disturb[Hon. Members: Go on!] A good prcis would be that she got it all wrong and that Britain was isolated in Europe. Suffice it to say that I would rather have Mrs. Thatcher negotiating for me on the rebate when she is isolated, than certain other leaders with plenty of allies.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is right when he says that the single market has been at the heart of public perception of the European Union in the UK. As he rightly reminded us, that goes back to the referendum of 1975, when being part of the trade bloc was the first of the three main reasons that the Government of the day gave for saying yes. The other two reasons were a guarantee of secure supplies of food and getting more European Community money spent in Britain. In view of the subsequent history of the common agricultural policyabout the only European matter with which the Liberal Democrats would now disagreeand the tangled history of the UK contribution to the budget, perhaps it is best to draw a veil over both those issues.
	To the credit of the Government of 1975a Government who had some impressive and significant figures, and some very good parliamentariansthey were clearly worried about the impact of the European Union on this House. A large section of the explanatory document that they issued was entitled, Will Parliament lose its power? The electorate of the day were told:
	It is the Council of Ministers and not the Market's officials who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree.
	That solemn safeguard has long since fallen by the wayside.

Si�n Simon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: I will later, if I get time.

Si�n Simon: Will he give way on that point?

James Clappison: All right, very briefly.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty in glowing terms, but did not those treaties bring about the two greatestby a massive marginextensions of qualified majority voting?

James Clappison: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had waited until the end of my speech. I shall give way to him once he has heard my whole argument.
	We now see a consensus on the Single European Act. That Act did indeed establish qualified majority voting to complete the market, but the problem isand it is also a problem for the hon. Gentlemanthat it did not stop there, as far as the European Union was concerned. We now see, particularly in this treaty, an extension of qualified majority voting into fields far beyond the single market. I asked the Secretary of State what proportion of our law came from the EU, and he did not know. I am not sure that he would know how much of our law is determined by qualified majority voting either. The ink was barely dry on the Single European Act when the process began that led to the treaty of Maastricht, to which the hon. Gentleman also alluded, and the Conservative Government of the day, very much to their credit, negotiated to put in place the safeguard of a pillar structure. The ink was barely dry on the treaty when the European institutions moved to new ground and set about collapsing the pillars.
	We moved onthis is the real answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon)to the European area of justice, freedom and security, more developments in the common European foreign and security policy, and developments that we were told might lead to common European defence. We then came to the long list of policy areas that the treaty contains. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) gave a good example. He complained that the health service would not be the sole responsibility of the House and was worried about the influence of US health corporations.
	Whatever our view of the Single European Act, we must ask whether it was the genuine aim of the European Union or simply a tool to accomplish other, different objectives. That is a live debate in Europeperhaps it should be heard more in this country.
	The outcome of the negotiations on the treaty provided one answer to that debate. After the French no, the Government experienced the humiliation of competition... free and undistorted being removed from the list of the objectives at the beginning and put into the protocol at the back.
	The Government are trying to get round that political humiliation with an argument based on legal technicalities about the effect of law in the protocols and law in the body of treaty. The objective was moved expressly and deliberately through the intervention of the French Government. It was at the beginning of the treaty and would have determined the shape of the EU and the shape of things to come. Our Government's negotiations on that failed and we suffered the humiliation, which has been trumpeted in France and many other parts of the EU, that free and undistorted competition is not the EU's objective. Whatever the legal force of the Government's achievement, it is not the same as having competition as an objective.
	Time and again, the Government return to the House from negotiations and try to put a brave face on their defeats. They have had to accept provisions that they opposed and subsequently performed contortions, with Ministers describing them in the House as a great step forward and good for the country while simultaneously introducing proposals to ensure that they would not apply here.
	Historians will have an interesting time investigating the background of and motivation for the UK negotiating position last June and earlier, when the rebate was lost. My hon. Friends talk of incompetence and it may be part of the historians' remit to investigate that. However, such failure is partly inherent in the UK's relationship with the supranational authority of the EU.
	It is a shame that Ministers cannot admit the truth to the House: sometimes, because of the nature of the institution, they cannot get their way in negotiations and they have not been able to secure what they and this country's electorate would have preferred. We must therefore be careful and jealous of the power of the House. We must be careful about the matters for which we permit the EU to exercise power over our electorate.
	Power is either exercised here, where we are accountable to our constituents and Governments are accountable to the people, or it is not. In the latter case, it is exercised elsewhere and the relevant authority is not so accountable. We sometimes pretend that, in the history of our relationship with the EU, there is some huge, underground storage facility beneath the House, containing unexercised and undistributed power.
	I reiterate that power is exercised either here or in Europe, by a supranational authority, over which we have limited ability to shape what takes place. Of course, we go to the limit of that ability, but it is not the same as national parliamentary accountability. That is the shame of our current proceedings, which are a travesty. We have been denied line-by-line consideration of the treaty. There could be no more compelling evidence of the way in which power has passed from the House and the House has been degraded. That is to the House's discredit.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from the previous day.
	On the draft Wiltshire (Structural Change) Order 2008, the Ayes were 269, the Noes were 158, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4)

Question again proposed .

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who made a sound and strong speech.
	We have heard some great names thrown around the Chamber, such as Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, President Sarkozy and Baroness Thatcher; indeed, we have even gone as far back as the rebate, which she negotiated after 1979. However, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was Jim Callaghan who first raised the rebate when he was Prime Minister in 1978. It was not Lady Thatcher alone who secured it; rather, it was already a Government policy to get some rebate back.
	There is a paradox in the Conservatives' policy on Europe. The one thing that they should support is the single market, because a free trade area is what they essentially believe in, yet they walk away from it. The hon. Member for Hertsmere touched on that when he talked about supranationality, but I should remind him that from 1957 the goal of the European Union, as it now is, has been ever closer union. The Union is a political space, an economic space and a geographic spaceit is all three, together as one. Today we are debating the economic space proposed by the Lisbon treaty and the essence of the Common Market, or the single or internal market, as it is now called.
	We have, rightly, been given quite some time to deal with the motion, to which the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been moved. We have heard interventions from the hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and for Hertsmere and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), as well as a speech by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). It is as well that we use this time to lay to rest the issue of the protocolthat is, the idea that we moved away from having undistorted competition in the new amending treaty.
	It is a surprise that the Conservatives complained about the constitutional treatythey say that it is not defunct, but what we are dealing with nowbecause the phrase free and undistorted competition was in fact contained in article 3 of the now defunct treaty. When the constitutional treaty was abandoned, so was that article. The protocol is indeed legally binding, as my right hon. Friend said last week, quoting the Law Society. The internal market, as set out in article 2 of the treaty on European Union, includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted. We can go as far back as the European Coal and Steel Community or the treaty of Rome, whose essence was the idea that the great nation states of Europe would never fight again, because trade would prevent them.

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Lisbon treaty is somewhat worse than the original constitution, on which he promised his constituents a referendum. How can he, as a man of integrity whom I greatly respect, justify not fulfilling his promise when he is now offering them something even worse?

Stuart Bell: I have the same respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he will know. We go back a long way and I always congratulate him on his Europeanism, with his house in France. It is very nice of him to be so European and to have a domicile in France as well as one here.
	I shall not try to quote Shakespeare againyou did not want me to do so last week, Mr. Deputy Speakerbut there are so many arguments that could be made on the Single European Act and the single market, yet they are not made, even by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge or the right hon. Gentleman. However, I would like what we mean when we talk about this legally binding protocol to be put on the record at least once, properly and coherently, because there are those in this country who follow our debates in  Hansard. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said:
	There was also a discussion at the Council about competition. The treaties have always made it clear that competition in the internal market should not be distorted. The now defunct constitutional treaty's objectives would have included new wording about free and undistorted competition. When the treaty was set aside, that provision was lost, but we agreed on a new and legally binding protocol to be annexed to the treaties, which reaffirms the commitment to ensuring that competition is not distorted, and the other references to competition in the existing treaties will remain: for example, articles 4, 27, 34, 81 to 89, 96, 98, 105 and 157 from the European Community treaty. The legal position in relation to competition therefore remains unchanged.[ Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 22.]

Michael Connarty: Should not the removal of undistorted competition be welcomed, when we know that it is combined with the victory on the services directive, which has protected fundamental services such as the health and other social services in this and other countries? It is about competition, but with a realistic assessment of the needs of countries to have fundamental social services.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Competition is in the interests of the consumer, the producer and the wider European Union of some 570 million citizens. There are benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned earlier, from one end of the Union to the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Mr. Connarty) also anticipated my comments on financial services.
	One would imagine that the Conservative party, which believes in free trade, believes in the extension of the financial services directive. One would think that Conservatives welcome the fact that the City of London, the greatest financial city in the world, will be able to march into Paris, Frankfurt, Milan and extend the wonderful financial services of our country. Yet the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is no longer in his place, and Conservative Members more widely look on the financial services directive as though it were some element of protectionism. They do not want qualified majority voting on financial services because they believe that if we have it, we will lose again. In fact, that is contrary to what the Conservative party believes inor should believe in. That takes us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who wondered what the present Conservative party was all about. Does it ever look itself in the mirror or think about what it is saying about business men, industry and the City of London? That is a conundrum that no Labour Member is able to fathom.
	I will take note of your counsel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that other Members want to speak. The internal market and the Lisbon agenda are not perfect. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was absolutely right to say that it has taken us 50 years to get where we are; the internal market is not complete and it needs structural reform. We need more competition and more flexibility, leading to better jobs. We need less protection, more growth and employment, improved productivity and enhanced competitiveness, which are all linked to social provision. Economists and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge might lament the slow pace of implementation of the Lisbon agenda, but they should take into account the fact that net profits of the Union's top 300 quoted companies rose 56 per cent. between 2000 and 2004. The return on equity, furthermore, was 14.8 per cent.
	The truth about this European Union of ours and the Lisbon agenda is contrary to what the Conservatives suggest. We, as Great Britain and the United Kingdom, are here within the Union to give leadership. We need to send out the message from this House of Commons that the single market and the Lisbon agenda will give us a strong economy, leading to prosperitya prosperity that also enables social provision.
	The Union's economic strength is the single market. As member states' activities converge, enacting their own structural reforms, so the well-being of EU citizens will be advanced, strengthening the concept of interdependence and assuring the future of all our generations to come. That is the messagethe positive message of the Lisbon agenda and the positive message of our Governmentthat this House should send out. That is how we will lead the debate through the amending treaty and back into the councils of Europe.

Adam Price: It is useful to remind ourselves of why we are discussing a European treaty plain and simple, and not a treaty on the European constitution. The reason is that the people of France and the Netherlands said no. One of the main things that they said no to was a vision of Europe in which public services were privatised and the social gains of the past 50 years were sacrificed in order to secure the economic gains from the single market, which we have heard so much about in this debate.
	That is not the realm of a Eurosceptic fantasist. After all, the Secretary of State said that removing barriers to competition was the fundamental task of the European Union. As for the Commission, it began with the network industriesthe utilities in energy and telecommunicationsbut it has already moved on. Only last week, the third postal services directive was agreed, which will almost certainly mean the end of a publicly owned postal service in small European states such as Luxembourg, and could spell the end of the Post Office in this country.
	In the neo-liberal newspeak of the European Commission, privatisation is known as liberalisation, which sounds much more benevolent, and public servicesfar too value-laden a termare known as services of general economic interest. I do not think that many people would rush to the barricades to defend SGEIs, as the technocrats call them. People did take to the streets, however, against the Commission's directive on opening public services to competitionthe controversial Bolkestein directivewhich was part of the reason why the constitution was sunk.
	In some ways, the treaty represents progress. There is recognition of public opposition to the further extension of the single market into the public realm. For the first time in the history of the EU, a specific protocol is devoted to services of general interest. My core contention, howeverand here I very much agree with the contribution of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson)is that the treaty's provisions are, unfortunately, insufficient to provide us with the necessary legal safeguards against further incursions by the Commission and extension of the single market model into the realm of publicly run, managed and financed services.
	The key problem with the protocol is that it does not define the distinction between services of non-economic general interest and services of general economic interest. I will not detain the House on that matter, but that is part of the problem leading to legal uncertainty. What is the legal position of public services as a result of the treaty?
	All the evidence is that the Commission takes an expansive line on the definition of the role of competition policy with regard to public services. Only last month, Jrgen Holmquist, the Commission's director general for the internal market and services, said at a conference that in his view, everything apart from the police, the justice system and social security could be marketised. He saw many advantages in promoting that through the Commission's policies.
	As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the best example is the Kyprianou directive on health care, which sought to introduce a form of health tourism. Superficially, it might seem to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that that has some advantages for individuals in the short term. But we should think of the disadvantages. How can one plan a publicly run, publicly owned health system, and manage resources and work force requirements, if the level of operations that will need to be financedand the financial cost incurred by poorer countries' health systems in making reimbursement for operations in higher-cost countriesis unclear?
	The Commission has dropped the Kyprianou directive, which was supposed to be published on 19 December. The speculation in the European Parliament is that the Commission wanted to avoid the publication of a controversial directive while member states were ratifying the treaty. This is what one socialist MEPwho led the opposition to the Bolkestein directivehad to say about the Commission:
	They're afraid of the reactions and of the consequences as long as the new reform treaty remains to be ratified by all member states...This is typical of this Europe: keep everyone sweet until the ink is dry on all of the signatures and then get on with far-reaching measures which have long been planned.
	That view has been echoed by the president of the Party of European Socialists, of which the Labour party is a member. The directive has been pulled by the Commission. It may be published after ratification, or even after the European parliamentary elections in 2009, because the Commission is worried about the public reaction.
	That worry about the extension of the single market model is not confined to health care. It is happening in other areas as well. In July 2005, the Commission wrote to the Dutch Government informing thema directly elected Governmentthat their system of social housing was not compatible with the single market, in order to compel housing associations to sell their empty properties. As a result, the highly successful Dutch housing association model, which mixes social housing with private rented accommodation, is unlikely to survive. Now the European Property Federation has complained to the Commission about municipal housing in Sweden, and it is only a matter of time before the same complaints are made here.
	As it stands, the treaty does not provide sufficient legal certainty about the special position of public services. Given past experience, it can therefore be expected that the Commission and the Court will continue to interpret the treaty in a manner that is slanted towards the opening up of more and more public services to competition.

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case, but he ignores the detail of the protocol. Article 1 clearly states that
	services of general economic interest
	will be organised
	as closely as possible to the needs of the users.
	That, combined with the victory won on the services directive in the Parliament since the constitutionthanks to the work of Arlene McCarthy, a Labour MEPhas changed the environment in which the provision will be interpreted. Surely the hon. Gentleman should give credit where it is due, and recognise the progress that has been made.

Adam Price: I said that some progress had been made, in the addition of the protocol as a result of political pressurenot least from the Dutch Governmentfollowing the Altmark decision in the European Court of Justice, which gave rise to the Commission's letter. Nevertheless, the Party of European Socialists group in the European Parliament is very worried about the draft Kyprianou directive.
	The central point that I am making, which has been made by public services trade unions and other stakeholders, is that we have no legal certainty because there is no definition in the protocol. Unfortunately, when there has been tension between the rights of subsidiarity and the Commission's right to remove what it sees as impediments to the four freedoms and to free competition, free competition has always won. That has always been the default position of the Commission and the Court.
	We need certainty. The Commission and the Court should not be allowed to override the health, education and housing policies of directly elected Governments, whether they are member states' Governments, devolved Administrations or local authorities. This is a constitutional issue, which is why we cannot support the Government's motion, and why we uphold the right of the people of this country to a referendum on the treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Gauke.

David Gauke: rose

Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a very short debate, lasting only three hours, and already the Front Benchers have taken up nearly one and a half hours of it. A three-hour debate on amendments to the European Union (Amendment) Bill will follow, and Front Benchers will have opportunities to speak on those. In those circumstances, I ask whether the debate can continue without the Front-Bench spokesmen. If a procedure can be invoked for that purpose, I should like to move the appropriate motion. Is there such a procedure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is take up even more time. I think that we should proceed in the normal way.

David Gauke: I thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) for highlighting how extraordinary it is that we have so little time to debate this Bill in the required detail.
	I thought there might just possibly be some degree of consensus in the debate on the single market. There is a specific question within the governing party as to whether the Government support the directive on cross-border health carea point raised by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson)and we look forward to hearing their views on that, but on the general issue of the single market, consensus could be found if we were to look for it, although after a slightly snippy contribution from the Secretary of State I am not sure that we found it this afternoon.
	Those of us who are somewhat sceptical about some aspects of the European Union welcome the idea of trade; we want to bring down barriers and we are against protectionism. That point of view has been there from the very beginning when the UK joined the Common Market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) pointed out. There is also a recognition by those on the Government Benches and others who tend to be more sympathetic to the European Union that not everything is going quite as well as it might be in this regard. The Government's own assessment of the single market, published a year or so ago, said that
	the rate of progressin terms of strengthening and deepening the Single Markethas slowed down in recent years.
	There is a recognition on all sides that too much regulation is coming from the EU and that that is damaging the competitiveness of Europe as a whole and the single market, and in particular that it is causing difficulties with job creation. The Minister for Europe made a point last night about there being 92 million economically inactive citizens of the EU; moreover, EU growth is slower than that of the US and our unemployment is higher. As the Prime Minister said when he was Chancellor,
	we cannot claim today's European social model is fair or effective when there are 20 million people unemployed and nearly half of them for more than a year.

Judy Mallaber: If the hon. Gentleman's party were to seek to renegotiate the treaty, given the importance of preventing unfair competition through the exploitation of workers, would it feel that any provisions should be introduced on a Europe-wide basis to allow free competition and ensure that there was not unfair competition because of exploitation?

David Gauke: The point I am making is that the current balance is not quite right and that regulation is too heavy-handed. Ministers share that point of view, although I am unsure whether the hon. Lady does. Given the consensus we have on wishing to bring down trade barriers and on the regulatory burdens in the EU being too high, we must examine how the treaty performs in addressing those problemsand it clearly fails.
	The heart of the matter is the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and other Members have raised: the dropping of the objective of free and undistorted competition from the objectives of the EU. That is important. That was a concession made by Tony Blair to the French President, shortly before President Sarkozy became the leading supporter of Mr. Blair's campaign to become president of Europe, but the Government argue that it does not really matter, as it is all in a protocol. What that point of view fails to appreciate is that European Court of Justice interpretations of the provisions of treaties tend to place greater weight on the preamble and the early articles. Evidence to support that comes from Professor Alan Riley of the City university in London, who wrote for the Centre of Policy Studies:
	No mere protocol can achieve the same interpretative status as the preamble and the first few articles,
	and he supports that assertion with a long list of examples from case law.
	Antonio Bavasso, visiting professor of competition law at University college London and a partner with Allen and Overy, said the following about the changes as a consequence of this deal:
	the political significance of the change cannot be overstated...The foundations of competition enforcement are now weaker.
	Both those independent experts make the argument that the change will weaken what we see as our objectivefree and undistorted competition. I know that many Labour Members do not support that view.

Rob Marris: rose

David Gauke: I do not have much time, but I shall briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman. Does he support free and undistorted competition?

Rob Marris: I have said that I want free and open competition, but I do not like the word distorted. Were not the Maastricht treaty's provisions on monetary union and the UK opt-out contained in a protocol, which has protected us all these years?

David Gauke: The difficulty that Labour Members have when they make that argument is that the European Court of Justice will sometimes have to balance two conflicting objectives. If an objective is in the early articles to the treaty or in its preamble, that gives it greater weight than if it were in a protocol. This situation is completely different from the one in respect of monetary union.
	Professor Alan Riley makes three important points about the consequence of the downgrading of competition. This is not just a nebulous concept, because he gives three examples. He says that this change will make it easier to expand the scope for lawful state aid and to permit merger clearance on broader industrial policy grounds, and that it will weaken pressure for market liberalisation. That is, of course, the Sarkozy agenda.
	When President Sarkozy secured the downgrading of competition, he said:
	We have obtained a major reorientation of the objectives of the Union.
	That is the key point. He continued:
	The word protection is no longer taboo.
	He also described competition as a dogma.

William Cash: rose

David Gauke: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I need to complete one or two remarks.
	President Sarkozy has said that a competition policy could emerge
	that will favour the emergence of European champions.
	He is cutting something of a dash on the world scene at the moment, and is emerging as a dominant figure in European politics. I am afraid that he is showing no enthusiasm for the Anglo-Saxon modeldespite a lot of enthusiasm for a Franco-Italian model. His view is wrong in terms of the best interests of the European Union, and it is certainly wrong in terms of the benefit of the United Kingdom.
	If the treaty had been in our interests and if it had been achieving our objectives, what would it have looked like? Such a treaty would have included provisions to bolster competition, not weaken it. Where are the Lisbon treaty's provisions to enable member states, not just the Commission, to propose the scrapping of unnecessary regulation? Such provisions do not exist. The treaty moves us away from the Anglo-Saxon model towards a more interventionist model. Its framework encourages more regulation, not less. Its objectives encourage more protectionism, not less. It is a reorientation of the EU away from the economic policies that create jobs and wealth, and towards the short-term protectionism that most people in this House oppose.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to fulfil my regular slot winding up our short debate. [Hon. Members: Too short] I hear from a sedentary position that it is too short, but what we have done today is take advice from the Conservative Opposition's amendment to the programme motion. We thus allowed three hours for the themed debated and three hours in which to consider amendments. The format of our debate is therefore exactly as the Conservative Opposition wished.
	May I also bring to the House's attention the fact that since I last had the opportunity to fill this slot, Slovenia, Romania and Malta have ratified the Lisbon treaty? I ask the House to celebrate that. The news will doubtless cause great rejoicing throughout this Chamber and across this nation.
	I also welcome the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) to the debate. He had his first opportunity to speak in one of the themed debates in this European treaty process. I think the House would accept that he made his case in a thoughtful and occasionally humorous way. I look forward to hearing from him again as the Bill goes through the House.
	We also had the opportunity to hear from several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). If time allows, I will respond to the points that they made.
	It has been said before, and I shall say so again clearly today, that the European Union helps to make the United Kingdom stronger, safer and better off. However, as I said last night, while the single market has been a remarkable success for the European Union and the United Kingdom, there are still too many people who are not benefiting from the economic growth and prosperity that the single market has brought us. There are 15 million Europeans without the basic literacy skills that they need to compete with the rising global economies. When we conclude the process on the Lisbon treaty, we should apply our political attention and determination to the Lisbon agenda for jobs and growth.

William Cash: We have not heard one word about China or India in the course of the debate so far. How can we compete, and reverse the decline in our market share internationally, if we have a European Union that is locked into the over-regulation and increasing protectionism that will prevent us from competing and engaging in the globalised economy?

Jim Murphy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying that I agree with the basic premise of some of his comments. There is an old stereotype of China and India that claims that their role in the global market is to compete at the bottom end. That is the old economic reality and is no longer relevant. Research spending in China is set to catch up with the EU by 2010 and is growing by 20 per cent. a year. When it comes to economic growth, it has taken China 10 years to achieve what Japan took 35 years to achieve. While we agree on some of the analysis underpinning the debate, we often come to different conclusions. The conclusion of the Government is that the evidence makes the case for being more effective through the European Union, as a group of 27 sovereign nations working together where they can in the largest rules-based market in human history.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend mentioned that there are parts of Europe that have not benefited as much as they should from being a member of the EU. The Government introduced objective 1 funding for Wales and other areas of the UK. Why does my hon. Friend think that the Conservatives, when they were in government, failed to apply for objective 1 funding, especially given that they had a pit closure programme, they were running down steel mills, and seaside towns were left to dangle in the wind?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend talks with great experience in such matters and the issue of the previous Government's record on objective 1 deserves greater focus on another occasion. In recent years, the growth in the labour market in the UK has been in areas that have previously seen endemic and generational unemployment. There is still much more to do, but the improvement has been seen in the most difficult, disadvantaged parts of the UK, many of them represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Many of our constituents now compete in a genuine global labour market, and this is the first generation for whom that is the case.

Katy Clark: My hon. Friend will have listened to the debate and will be aware of the concerns that have been raised by some hon. Members about the impact of the single market on public services. He will have heard reference to the protocol on services of general interest that was negotiated. In my constituency, we have lifeline ferry services provided by CalMacCaledonian MacBrayne. The previous Scottish Executive spent more than 17 million on a tendering exercise that resulted in CalMac keeping the tender. Will that exercise now be required, in his view, under the protocol?

Jim Murphy: I am well aware of the ferries in my hon. Friend's constituency. I look forward to travelling on one to the Isle of Arran this Sunday with my family. I shall discuss that matter with the ferry crew and others this Sunday. The protocol makes it clear for the first time that the provisions of the treaty do not affect in any way the competence of member states to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest. I look forward to continuing that conversation with my hon. Friend.
	Let me turn to the point on health made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Maastricht introduced competence on public health, of course, and the treaty makes it clearer than ever before that member states remain solely responsible for organising, delivering, and making decisions about the allocation of resources to their health systems. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with my right hon. Friend. Article 2 says that individual states should organise and deliver the health systems that I have mentioned. The words used are new in the Lisbon treaty and helpfully clarify that the allocation of resources in public health systems is for member states to decide.
	Let me turn to the subject of competition, which exercised Conservative Members at great length.

Frank Dobson: Is the Minister telling us that the Lisbon treaty sets aside the ECJ's Watts decision? If it does, I would welcome it.

Jim Murphy: The Lisbon treaty makes a stronger, clearer statement than ever before about the role of national Governments in organising the resources and funding of their national health services. We will discuss the issues in greater detail as the Bill goes through Parliament.
	On competition, the protocol has the same legal weight as other treaty texts. The Law Society, of which the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is a member, said that
	a Protocol records that the EU's internal market includes a system which ensures that competition is undistorted. This does not change the current legal position.
	The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Law Society; I suggest that he should pay more attention to his own organisation's reflections on the issues.
	This afternoon, the statements from the Opposition have made the situation very clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that they have only one ally across Europe. Unusually, he is wrong. I met the Deputy Prime Minister from the ODS in the Czech Republic, Mr. Vondra, and he is strongly supportive of the Lisbon treaty. Conservative Members have had two weeks to name a single conservative party anywhere in Europe that supports their rejection of the treaty, and so far they have been unable to do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 352.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith  t he Main Question, pursuant to Order [28 January]: 
	 The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 186.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill
	  
	[4th Allotted Day]

(Any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to the single market)
	 Further considered in Committee .

[Sir Michael Lord  in the Chair]

Clause 2
	  
	Addition to list of treaties

Mark Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 237, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, inserted Article 2B TEC (TFEU), paragraph 1(b) providing for the establishing of competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market to be an area of exclusive competence of the European Union; and
	(ii) '.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 231, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, inserted Article 2B TEC (TFEU), paragraph 1(e) providing for the common commercial policy to be an area of exclusive competence of the European Union; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 232, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, inserted Article 2C TEC (TFEU), paragraph 2(a) providing for the internal market to be an area of shared competence of the European Union and Member States; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 219, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraphs 40 to to 45, inserted Title I and Articles 22a and 22b, renumbered Title Ia, amended Article 23(1), inserted Chapter Ia and Article 27a TEC (TFEU) relating to the internal market; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 239, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 45. inserted Article 27a TEC (TFEU), relating to customs co-operation; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 234, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 78, Article 88 TEC (TFEU), inserted paragraph 4 enabling the Commission to adopt regulations relating to the categories of State aid the Council has exempted from the State aid authorisation procedure; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 238, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 83, amendment to Article 96 TEC (TFEU) providing that directives to deal with distortions in competition shall be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 235, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 158, inserted Article 188C TEC (TFEU), relating to the common commercial policy; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 224, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) the provision for a special committee to assist the Commission in negotiating and concluding agreements under the Common Commercial Policy contained in Article 2, paragraph 158, inserted Article 188C TEC (TFEU), paragraph 3; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 195, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) the Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition; and
	(ii) '.
	(a), in line 1, after 'Competition', insert
	', unless arrangements have been made for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the operation and application of European Union competition policy according to the principle set out in the Protocol'.
	No. 215, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Annexed Protocol No. 1 Amending the Protocols Annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and/or to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Article 1, paragraph 20(h), relating to the application to the United Kingdom and Ireland of measures relating to the free movement of persons, services and capital; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 223, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) any provision relating to the Internal Market in so far as it could be applied to healthcare services; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 72, line 12, after 'protocols', insert
	of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which relates to measures to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic)'.
	No. 73, line 12, after 'protocols', insert
	of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (which relates to aid granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany and the power of repeal by the Council)'.
	No. 138, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 73, amendment to Article 78 TEC (TFEU) permitting the repeal of that Article (which relates to the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany); and
	(ii) '.
	No. 139, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 77, amendment to Article 78 (2)(c) TEC (TFEU) permitting the repeal of that provision (which relates to the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany); and
	(ii) '.
	No. 236, in clause 8, page 4, line 8, leave out 'on Royal Assent' and add
	'when arrangements have been made for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the operation and application of European Union competition policy according to the principle set out in the Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition'.

Mark Francois: Just before we voted at the end of our debate on the motion, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who is not with us at the moment, made a point of order complaining about the relatively small number of Back Benchers who had managed to contribute. The Minister said that the Government had decided on a three-hour/three-hour split. I remind him that in our alternative proposal we argued for 18 days of consideration, which would have provided much more time to debate the treaty. In deference to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, I will attempt to keep my remarks relatively brief in the hope that the maximum number of Back Benchers can participate. I hope that the Minister will appreciate what I am trying to do.
	Amendment No. 237 would prevent competition rules from becoming an exclusive competence of the European Union. That would, first, improve the treaty by removing a series of potentially damaging side-effects while allowing the UK to retain the freedom to complement the internal market where deemed necessary; and secondly, as the Minister for Europe must be getting used to hearing when we are discussing amendments, be in line with the Government's policy as laid out when debating in the European Convention. The Government's chief negotiator at the Convention, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), argued at the timeI know that the Minister enjoys these quotes, so I will read it slowly:
	The Community does not have exclusive competence in relation to measures to ensure free movement in the internal market...If the Community were to have exclusive competence in these areas, the Member States would have no power to take any measures (eg, in relation to the protection of health or consumer protection) which could affect free movement, nor to establish rules to promote competition. Plainly, the Member States currently exercise powers in these areas. The Community has power to harmonise the rules in these areas, but authority to take action in these areas is effectively shared.
	Needless to say, that amendment failed. That is not surprising because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out last Tuesday, of the 40 or so amendments in justice and home affairs that were tabled by the Government at the Convention, only two succeeded, one of which was to change the word safety to security. Unfortunately, the Government were hardly any more persuasive at the Convention in their arguments regarding competition policy.
	What are the effects of the treaty on UK competition policy of which the Government originally disapproved? For the first time, the treaty characterises
	the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market
	as an exclusive competence of the EU. Where there is an exclusive competence, the treaty explains that
	only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts.
	Therefore, unlike under current treaties, the UK will not be able to legislate on its own initiative to complement Union competition rules. It would not even be able to vary rules temporarily or permanently to protect the health or safety of UK subjects. The effects of the changes are wide reaching, so it is no wonder that the right hon. Member for Neath tried and failed, not once, but twice, to carry what we agree was a measured and sensible amendment.
	In practice, the treaty will mean that UK authorities will no longer be able to supplement EU competition rules if they believe that EU competition law does not go far enough. That could lead to cases where distortions in UK markets go untreated while the UK waits as it tries to push through new competition regulations in Brussels. An example of that sort of situation may be found in the UK financial services industry, which is particularly pertinent to many of my constituents who commute into the City. If the UK decided that aspects of the industry required further competition laws or regulations, it could not legislate in that area on its own because the matter would be an exclusive competence of the Union. Likewise, if our Government found that they did not have sufficient rules to encourage competition policy in, for example, the UK's airports, they would have to argue for rules at an EU level, having given up the ability to legislate in that area.
	A second problem was identified by the right hon. Member for Neathhe was prescient. Once competition becomes the exclusive preserve of the EU, the ability of the Government to legislate to protect health and to engage in consumer protection will be compromised. A persuasive example given by the Government in 2004 concerned a case brought against them at the European Court of Justice by tobacco companies, which was initiated in December 2002. The case highlighted the conflict between the implementation of health standards, such as maximum tar and carbon monoxide levels in cigarettes, and the EU's competition policy. In 2004, the Government argued that had competition policy been an exclusive competence rather than a shared one, they would not have been able to influence that important area of health policy.
	Given all of those factors, I have three questions for the Minister. First, the wording of the competition laws regarding the abuse of dominant positions states that it will apply in any case that
	may affect trade between member states.
	Given that the legal interpretation of the word may is extremely wide, will the Minister explain what that wording will encompass if the treaty goes through? Secondly, what discussions have the Government undertaken with the UK Competition Commission with regard to the treaty's provisions? Thirdly, with regard to the danger highlighted by the right hon. Member for Neath concerning the inability of the UK to safeguard health and consumer protection, has the Minister received any further reassurance during his negotiations with EU partners?
	Turning to amendment No. 239 on customs co-operation, under the treaty, EU laws could lay down conditions under which UK Customs could check to ensure compliance with national criminal law regarding items entering the UK. That could oblige Customs to report its compliance with such matters to the Commission. Such laws could import all of the EU's human rights general principles, such as the charter of fundamental rights, into the applications of our Customs procedures, with unknown effects. We tabled amendment No. 239 to prevent that situation from arising.
	I said to the House that I would be brief, so I shall conclude speaking on our amendments as follows. Amendment No. 237 would do only what the Government wanted to achieve but failed to secure when they negotiated the European Convention. It would allow the UK to complement EU competition policy when that is necessary and protect the UK from regulation when it is not. It would strike out elements that are full of unknown consequences. It would also preserve the House's ability to promote health and consumer protection, as the Government wished to do.

Sylvia Heal: I call Mr. Tim Farron.

Jeremy Browne: Jeremy Browne.

The First Deputy Chairman: I apologise.

Jeremy Browne: It is not the first time that that mistake has been made. However, I believe that my hon. Friend is a full fortnight younger than me, so he is obviously not ageing in the right way.
	I want to speak about the lead amendment and amendment (a) to amendment No. 195. I do not intend to speak at length, partly because others wish to speak and partly because some of the arguments were rehearsed earlier today.
	My party enthusiastically supports the single market and regards it as one of the great successes of the European Union. I am not as worried as the Conservative spokesman about the inclusion of the word exclusive in the treaty. Indeed, our interpretation is that, if we do not try to enforce a single market and we allow people to pick and choose an opt-out when it pleases them, that may be detrimental to the United Kingdom, which tends to be an enthusiast for enforcing the free market principles of the EU with some rigour. We support powers that will enable the single market in the EU to function as effectively as possible. It does not take a huge leap of imagination to envisage some of our partner nations in the EU dragging their feet to the detriment of people in Britain. We cannot prevent them from doing that unless we give the EU some powers. It still means that the UK can have, for example, an Office of Fair Trading. Exclusive does not mean that the British Government can no longer make policies and apply them to the UK. However, that does not detract from the value of rigorous rules that are enforceable throughout the EU.

Rob Marris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, were amendment No. 237 to be passed, it could disadvantage British business that was trading elsewhere in the EU because other EU countries would have protective measures, which we would find more difficult to dismantle or oppose unless we kept the wording as it is?

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for that intervention because I agree with it. It is worth emphasising the hon. Gentleman's point. It is fair to say that different views exist in the EU about the way in which western advanced capitalist economies should go. That is a slight simplification but it helps explain matters. I believe that most members of all three main parties have much sympathy for what is regarded as the Anglo-Saxon model of rigorous competition. That view is not universally held but our Government and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers subscribe to it. Competition and free trade create wealth and jobs and it is in our interests to promote such values throughout the European Union.
	That view is not held at such high levels of government in some other European Union countries. France is commonly cited as an example of a country that has a political and cultural attachment to a social model, but many people in Britain would feel that that model restricted business. A great irony of our debate is that the Conservative party, which used to be the pro-business party in the UK, is now trying to make British businesses less able to exploit opportunities to expand elsewhere in the EU.

Jon Trickett: At least we have a clear idea of where the Liberal Democrats intend to place themselves in the next election campaign, and possibly afterwards. By associating themselves so clearly with the principles of competition and the open market, they ignore the resultant inequities and inequalities. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if markets are to be a mechanism for disputing goods and services, strong social protections should be in place to prevent the breakdown in social cohesion that might otherwise occur?

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for thatit was not so much an intervention as a statement. I hope that I can say with some confidence that the Liberal Democrats will favour free market economics in our manifesto at the next general election. Indeed, one of the reasons I am a Liberal Democrat is that I am an economic liberal. Economic liberalism has much to teach everyone across all three major parties in the House. At the risk of being pulled up short, I think that the great ideological debates of the 20th century about whether competition and free market economics are successful or whether there is a preferable alternative model was resolved fairly decisively in about 1989.

Mark Francois: I understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma with regard to Liberal policy. Indeed, the whole House sympathises. If experience is any guide, the eventual outcome is that the Liberal Democrats will be pro-competition in some constituencies and against it in others.

Jeremy Browne: What I can say? If one wants to observe protectionism, one need only watch the Conservative party defending its vested interests. I am a keen advocate, as is my party, of rigorous competition, economic growth and British companies being able to trade throughout the European Union, which has been greatly to our benefit. Indeed, I am surprised that this position has proven so controversialI thought that it was just a statement of the obvious.

Michael Connarty: The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that one has to look at the policies that they espouse in other quarters to see what they are really talking about. Do the Liberal Democrats still take reference to the liberal free market in their policies to mean that they would sell the shares in the Post Office, a public service?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That really is rather wide of the amendment under discussion.

Jeremy Browne: It is rather wide, but it emphasises yet again that the Liberal Democrats are at the centre of the national debate on such issues. I shall be happy to take further questions when we have a more widely framed debateindeed, perhaps I should apply for an Adjournment debate.

Alan Simpson: Clarity is obviously the keystone of all Liberal Democrat thinking. Will the hon. Gentleman be absolutely clear on his party's supportor lack of itfor the EU agency workers directive?

Jeremy Browne: Again, I fear that that would lead us astray and I anticipate being pulled up short.
	We have strayed a long way, so let me bring the debate back to amendment No. 237. Does my party believe that it is in the interests of British business to have a properly and consistently enforced free market, where we can trade in goods and services, and does that add to the likelihood of British companies generating both wealth for their shareholders and extra employment? Yes it does, in my view and that of my party. Do we therefore need rules and regulations to ensure that we and other countries comply with those basic criteria? Yes, in my view, we do. Is it therefore unwise for the Conservative party to try to act to the detriment of British business, by making it possible for other European Union countries to restrict the operation of the free market? In my view it is. The Conservative party's pro-business credentials have been taken over by their Eurosceptic credentials. That is a mistake.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Browne: I am extremely generous and will continue to be so.

Rob Marris: I have some sympathy with the position set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), but I do not see that as necessarily contradictory. However, I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on this. Through the rules governing the internal market, one can have levelling up, but it is too often assumed that there will instead be a levelling down, which is not what I want. I want levelling up, so that we can have free and open competition, but within a framework, so that we do not have, literally and metaphorically, beggar thy neighbour downwards competition, but instead move up together. British companies can compete by having good standards here, but also good standards on the continent.

Jeremy Browne: Perhaps we should write a pamphlet together on that subject, as I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is crude to see us as advocating either completely unfettered capitalism or as going down the opposite path. I am in favour of enlightened social policies, but conducted within a framework of rigorous competition taking place within a European single market. That is a position that some people in the Labour party have come to view sympathetically, which is why we agree with the Government on this point and disagree with the Conservative party.
	Before that fascinating question and answer session [Interruption.]fascinating for some, as I cannot speak for everyone in that regard, I was speaking to our amendment (a) to amendment No. 195. That amendment, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, is constructive: unlike many of the Conservative amendments, it is not designed to wreck the treaty, but to strengthen it. I do not anticipate that the House will decide on it, as that would require amendment No. 195 to be passed first, but I do not anticipate that that will be successful either.
	The nub of the amendment is our concern about the concession widely recognised as having been made to placate the French Government regarding the taking out of the phrase free and undistorted competition from the original document when the revisions were made. We hear it said frequently by the Conservatives that the two documents are almost identicalindeed, so similar that no distinction can be made between them. On this point, there is a distinction to be made. I was in favour of free and undistorted competition in the earlier constitutional treaty and I regret its having been taken out. Yet again, I am in the unusual position of outflanking the Conservatives by being more pro-business than they are.

Mark Harper: Having attended our earlier debate, I am now a little confused. The amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrat Members clearly demonstrates concern about taking out the phrase free and undistorted competition. Earlier, however, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), while conceding that we had a point on that issue, chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), the shadow Chief Secretary, for labouring that point. However, given the spirit of the amendment, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) seems to be saying now that our argument had rather more force than his hon. Friend suggested.

Jeremy Browne: I recommend that Conservative Members always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is able to provide economic master-classes for them all. They should heed his words. I listen to them and I am slowly improving as a result of hearing his wise words.
	I am asked whether the change has made a material difference. No, because the phrase I mentioned was not part of the status quo in any case and was not in the original documentation of the European Union. Do we welcome the fact that it was added to the constitution? Yes. Do we therefore regret that we have gone back again to the original status quo when we thought that the position put forward in the constitutional treaty was preferable? Our view is yes again. It does not make a material difference. In our view, we have taken a step forward and a step back to where we were. But does it send out a slightly unwelcome signal about protectionism, which we want to see less of, and about free trade and competition in the EU, which we support? Yes, our view is that it does.

Peter Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to us and his constituents why he proposes not to vote for a referendum on the constitution, which he promised he would vote for at the election, even though he thinks that this treaty is slightly worse? How can he justify that?

Jeremy Browne: The problem with Conservative Members is that when I am trying to talk about the interests of British business, all they seem to be interested in is their hang-up on the issue of a referendum. I risk being pulled up short, but let me try to take the House through the incremental steps in response to the question. Everyone recognises that this issue of the referendum is a rather small aspect of the overall treaty [Interruption.] I see that the Minister for Europe, who virtually lives in the Chamber nowadays, probably feels that this conversation is taking up another 20 minutes or half an hour more of our time in the days and weeks of debate about the different aspects of the treaty. I would not see this aspect as the linchpin of the treaty.
	Our view on the referendum issue is that the constitution superseded all previous treaty agreements and that the treaty is different in nature. The content

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is responding to an intervention, but I must point out to him that we are not now dealing with the constitution or the referendum. Will he return to the amendment under discussion?

Jeremy Browne: I was trying to be helpful, Mrs. Heal, but I made a mistake in doing so. All that I observe is that the Conservatives had 18 years in government to hold as many referendums on the European Union as they wished, and never once sought to do so, which many of my constituents regret.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of my ruling? We are not debating the matter of a referendum this afternoon.

Jeremy Browne: What a relief that is, I am sure, to us all, but not least to the exceedingly tedious people on the Conservative Back Benches.

Michael Connarty: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument against this amendment and for his amendment to amendment No. 195. If he regrets the previous constitution being changed to the new Lisbon treaty, and the removal of the reference to undistorted competition, do the Liberals therefore not support the protocol on services of general interest, which fundamentally changed the previous position on undistorted competition? That seems to be the logic of his argument.

Jeremy Browne: I will make an unusual concession in the House, which is that I do not feel that I have the same degree of expertise as the hon. Gentleman to give him as good an answer as I would wish. I can only look at the overall principles and say that free and undistorted competition is a value that the British Government are right to seek to promote in the European Union. We regret that it is not contained in the treaty, as it was in the previous constitutional arrangements.

Si�n Simon: On the question of values, can we be clear about exactly what has happened? Free and undistorted competition has not been taken out of the treaty; it has been moved from the section dealing with objectives. Although it is very important, it is not an objective. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that prosperity is an objective, and that free and undistorted competition is a means by which one achieves the objective of prosperity? That is why it has been taken out of the section dealing with objectives but left in the treaty in a protocol, with the same legal status.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman has made his argument, and it stands for itself.
	To conclude, we do not support the Conservative amendment No. 237, and we wish the Government well in seeking to promote free and undistorted competition within the European Union.

Laura Moffatt: I want to oppose amendment No. 237. As I am Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I shall exclude from my comments amendment No. 223, which is on a health-related matter.
	Our constituents watch us doing the important work of scrutinising the treaty and amendments and trying to improve it. It is right and proper that they ensure that we do a good job, but the principal aim of Members must be that the amendments make a difference to the treaty, which I believe to be a fantastic step forward for my constituents. Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 in particular will not achieve thatthey will not improve the treaty that we eventually ratify, as I am sure we will, in any way, shape or form.
	It is important to bear in mind where my constituents sit in the context of the United Kingdom's economic well-being. My constituency is at the centre of what is described as the Gatwick diamondand a diamond of a constituency it is. What my constituents will want to know is how the amendments will make it easier for members of the local business community to do their job. The area is highly prosperous, and attracts businesses from all over the United Kingdom and, indeed, all over Europe to settle close to the second largest airport in the country. Those businesses will want to know whether the amendments will make it any easier for them to do their job, and I do not believe that they will.
	The treaty is a reasonable and proportionate response to the need to ensure that businesses can do their job. It enables us to deliver the rest of the Government's agenda, and get more people into jobs and apprenticeships so that companies can thrive and extend their operations. Many of our constituents who will be affected by the treaty have openly expressed their belief that it will do in its current form, and they will take the view that the amendments will not help in any way.
	In the earlier debate, Members quoted various experts. It was often quite difficult to understand who those experts were, and how they came to be experts. I think it more important for us to consider the views of members of the business community who are having to work in the European Union, and who are trying to do their jobs. They welcome the sense of partnership conferred not just by the internal market but by the benefits that it brings to the work force, and they are discomfited by proposals such as these from the official Opposition. They are made uncomfortable by the possibility of changes in the way in which they do business, gaining access to nearly 500 million consumers. We can feel confident that those consumers are being treated decently, and can reap the benefits of the good working conditions for which trade unionists in this country worked for many years. The European Union is now improving those conditions further, and the treaty is updating them.
	Let me end by quoting not an expert or someone who has put himself forward just to oppose the treaty, but a letter written to  The Times in the middle of last year arguing against one of its leaders. The letter accepts that there are difficulties, that the situation is tough, and that we must work together and understand each other to deal with the problems that have been discussed in the House today. It concludes:
	But over all the EU treaty is not a federalist monster but a sensible attempt to improve its institutional machinery.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I strongly support amendment No. 237. I want to reintroduce a topic that was debated earlier. The single market, which is desirable in principle and was, indeed, one of the achievements of a Conservative Government, has ceased to be a mechanism for the reduction of barriers to trade and has instead become an excuse for regulation. It has released a regulatory impulse that is almost impossible to stop.
	It has been observed that birds fly, fish swim and regulators regulate. Brussels and the European Union are full of regulators who make their living from passing laws, directives and more regulations. There is no proper countervailing force to stop that. It has become the hallmark of the European Union. Even business organisationsand certainly the Governmenthave been far too slow in realising the damage being caused to British and European competitiveness. The CBI has been instanced in our debates today, and its attitude during the Convention on the Future of Europe was feeble.

Jeremy Browne: I share the right hon. Gentleman's antipathy towards excessive regulation, but does he accept that some regulation is required to empower consumers to make informed choices when they are active in different parts of the single market?

David Heathcoat-Amory: Of course any market needs a degree of regulation; that is obvious. The most extreme capitalist understands the need for laws; Adam Smith wrote books about that. Every market needs the rule of law, but that is not what I am referring to now. The point on over-regulation is not my observation; it as an observation the Government make. The Minister referred to attemptsof which we have had plentyto turn back the tide and launch deregulatory initiatives in the EU. We have heard it all before; it never works or it never happens. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. We are still on the receiving end of a blizzard of new proposals, directives and regulations. We were told that with enlargement everything would seize up if we did not get more majority voting in the constitution. That was another lie, of course. We did not need the constitution in order to enlarge, and we now have 12 new member states and even more laws are coming out of Brussels even without the extensions in majority voting in the treaty. So we are on the receiving end of a torrent of over-regulation, which far exceeds the rule of law necessary to regulate any free market sensibly.

Mark Harper: It is interesting to contrast my right hon. Friend's argument with that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who also referred to the views of business people. My right hon. Friend will know that a recent ICM poll of 1,000 chief executives found that 59 per cent. thought the burden of regulation was rising and more than half thought the benefits of the single market were outweighed by the cost of regulation.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am familiar with those figures. It is sad that one of our leading business organisations, the CBI, did not wake up to what was happening in the Convention on the Future of Europe. During the Convention, I wrote to the director-general of the CBI, one Mr. Digby Jones, to alert him to what was happening. He never bothered to reply, but he then had the brass neck to complainnot to me, but to the European Scrutiny Committeethat Parliament was not doing its job in stopping all these regulations.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend and I put the Lord Jones, as he is now is, to the test in that Committee. He could not answer our questions, and although he was complaining about us he had never made any representations. In my speech on Second Reading of the 1986 single market measures, I made the point that it would help if organisations such as the CBI took an interest, and to my knowledge it has taken no interest in the Committee since then.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend recollects Mr. Jonesas he was, in a humbler incarnation, in those days. He has, of course, since become a Labour Minister and he is now even more complicit in

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Please can we now direct our remarks to the amendment?

Angela Browning: One of the problems is that although many of us agreed with the initial concept of the single marketto remove tariff barriers and to have mutual recognition of goods and servicesthe welter of regulation introduced to bring about total harmonisation throughout the EU has been used as an anti-competitive device within the EU. As a former Minister who had to deal with the food and drinks industry, I know that every time a small British company such as a soya milk or mineral water manufacturer started to gain market share, their competitors within the EU used the single market to see them off.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend knows that well, and she is absolutely right. It is striking that no other trade bloc has gone down this route of handing over its powers to a central organisation that over-regulates. The rest of the world is steaming ahead of us. That model, which is held up to be a paragon by Labour Members, has not been followed by anyone else and it is doing terrible damage to European competitiveness.
	May I again refer to the Convention on the Future of Europe, on which I sat? I raised the question of European competitiveness in the wider world, but there was no interest in that. This little European attitudethis inward-looking obsession with harmonisation and standardisation in Europedominated all the proceedings. The real question is not whether one country is more competitive or productive than another in Europe; it is whether Europe as a whole is competitive in the wider world, because that is where we ultimately have to earn our living. That issue was never addressed in the Convention.
	My point has finally been recognised in some quarters of the Commission. I am referring to a figure that has been published by the Commission. It is the estimate that the annual cost of all the over-regulation is as much as 600 billion. That exceeds the Commission's own estimate of the added value of having a single market. Its website estimates that figure to be only 240 billion a year. Even by the Commission's own arithmetic, the cost of all the regulation exceeds the supposed benefits of the single market in the first place.

Peter Bone: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. We cannot overstate how much over-regulation there is. Later tonight, we will probably approve European Union document No.14,277that relates to 2007. The amount of regulation is extraordinary.

David Heathcoat-Amory: That is another example of the point. I think that all hon. Members have their own examples. I still cherish the memory of the physical agents (vibration) directive. [Laughter.] It really exists. It deals with the problem, only identified by the European Union, of something called whole body vibration. One would experience that if one sat on a tractor for too long.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Limited time is available and many Members wish to contribute, so may I ask hon. Members to confine their remarks to the amendments before us?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I shall do that, but I must just mention the Lisbon processI think that it is in order to do so. It was launched in 2000 and aimed to make the Union by 2010
	the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world.
	We only have two years to go, and those words are almost comically at variance with what has happened. The gap between ourselves and the United States and far east has widened since, and the treaty does nothing to deal with it.

Rob Marris: Before I entered this House, one of my fields of expertise was vibration. I would be happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman outside about the problems of vibration white finger and whole body vibration, which he pooh-poohs. Those are significant health problems in the European Union.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that nobody in the world is going in the way we have gone, but I must caution him on that. Since the founding of the Common Marketnow the European Unionthe North American Free Trade Agreement has been introduced and is expanding, and Mercosur in Latin America, which is on more or less the same track as the European Union [Interruption.] Mercosur has a political dimension as well as an economic one. I would caution him against making a sweeping generalisation that nobody else is taking this approachthey are, because we are successful.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I know a little about Mercosur because I was once a junior Minister in the Foreign Office and responsible for Latin America. I recall visiting Brazil, which is of course part of Mercosur and saying that one piece of advice that I wanted to give was not to set up anything remotely resembling the European Commission. The Brazilians said that they had learned that lesson. They said, We know the damage caused by unaccountable bureaucrats sitting in private and dreaming up new schemes for everyone else. We do not want those proto-regulators with awesome powers, accountable to no one. We are not going down that route. The hon. Gentleman will not find in the North American Free Trade Agreement or in Mercosur anything remotely resembling the European Union.
	The customs union that we have in Europe is also practically unique and it has a damaging effect on the developing world. If a country is a member of NAFTA, it can do side agreements and bilateral deals with poorer countries to take their goods tariff-free. As we are in a customs union, we cannot do that. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, but we have handed over our powers on trade to the European Commission. We are prevented by treaty law from making trade-expanding agreements with the poorest countries in the world. That is shameful, but it is the result of having a customs union and not being a member of a free trade area.

Patricia Hewitt: I must challenge the right hon. Gentleman on that point. It was the European Union, with the British Government and public in strong support, that led the way in offering to the poorest countries in the world the Everything but Arms agreement, which allows quota-free and tariff-free access for goods from the poorest countries to the largest market in the world. The European Union led the way on that and the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Again, the right hon. Lady is wrong on that. The European Union is now trying to force economic partnership agreements on to those countries, which they do not want. We used to have a trade Department in this country, but now we have only half a Minister. If that Minister wants to do something practical for the poorest people in the poorest countries, he or she has to go off to the European Commission and try to be nice to Mr. Peter Mandelson, in the hope that he will do something.

Angela Browning: Having handed powers over to the commissioner, the UK Government no longer have their own seat at the table.

David Heathcoat-Amory: That is what happens when countries export their powers as we have done, and grant a monopoly to a jurisdiction that they do not control.
	The single market powers, as expanded in the treaty, will not protect us. I cannot be alone in witnessing de-industrialisation in my constituency. It must be even greater in more industrialised areas further north. I have seen manufacturing firms relocate from my constituency to eastern Europe as part of the single market. I have no quarrel with that if the firms are simply moving into another part of the European Union that can exert its comparative advantage of lower costs and perhaps greater efficiency. But they are doing that on subsidies given to them in the European Union budget. The workers in my constituency, through the taxes they pay on their wages, are contributing to the budget and paying to have their jobs relocated. They are contributing to the undermining of their own security. Of course, the situation is getting worse. Under the European Communities (Finance) Bill, which we debated and passed last month, our net contributions will go up to 6 billion a year. The bulk of that increase will go towards giving additional subsidies to the newer countries of the EU to aid the process of transferring jobs from this country.
	Any idea that the EU is somehow a protective organisation is at variance with the facts. In my view, the EU is emphasising the rights of workers to move because of the fantasy that people displaced in such a way can relocate, as they do in the United States. The US is a genuinely free market within a single country. People locate from one state to another. They speak the same language and they have the same federal laws. If that is the aim for the EU, we should be told. It is quite wrong to expect that workers should pursue their jobs in different parts of the country and the different

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That subject comes under the next group of amendments to be discussed.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Of course, I want to stay in order, Mrs. Heal, but I think that the mobility of labour and the so-called protective features of the treaty are the subject of the amendments that we have tabled.
	The main feature of the European Union that I want to explore in the time remaining is the use of the powers in the existing treaties that establish a single market to extend European legislation into new areas of policy. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled a number of amendments to cut and define better those powers.
	I am thinking particularly of articles 94 and 95 of the existing treaty. They are increasingly being used not to establish a single market but to legislate in areas that are quite disconnected with it, because they use qualified majority voting. In a sense, everything can be traded or can cross borders. That is confirmed by a paper I was helpfully given by the Foreign Office during the Convention on the Future of Europe, which listed all the items of legislation that have been passed under the single market powers given by articles 94 and 95, of which 104 go far wider than the establishment of a single market. They deal with things such as money laundering, the art market, transnational organised crime, summer time arrangements, noise emissions, units of measurements, member states' balance of payments, combating terrorism, anti-personnel landmines, counterfeiting, civil protection, budgetary discipline and social security relating to employed persons.
	Of course, the same idea relates to the matter of health, which is the subject of a number of amendments in this group. The EU regards health as a legitimate area for legislation under the single market articles because health can be traded and because health care can be experienced across borders. Using the single market, the EU has expanded its powers into the new areas. That so worried the working group that I was on during the Convention that it recommended amendments to the treaties to redefine the market powers and to ensure that they are used only to bring down barriers and to enact measures that are genuinely and intimately connected with the establishment of a single market, rather than to expand EU powers into new areas by qualified majority voting in the way that I have described.
	Those amendments were entirely rejected by the secretariat and the presidency of the Convention on the Future of Europe. To me and others, that showed that the exercise was a sham and that there was never any intention to relinquish any powers. Even though a majority in the working group supported some amendments to restrict those powers, they were overturned and ignored. No such change ever found its way into the final document or the constitution, and so nothing to that effect is in the Lisbon treaty.
	I end by supporting the conclusions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about exclusive competence. It is quite wrong that competition policy should be made an area of exclusive competence, and I can claim in support of that contention a letter written by the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) to the European Scrutiny Committee in January 2004, when she was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the letter, she made the correct observation that
	competition rules under Articles 81 and 82 are an area of shared competence.
	I agree, so why are they now to become an area of exclusive competence? The distinction is very important, as the Government recognised at that time. If competition is an area of exclusive competence, member states are forbidden to legislate in respect of it, even if the aim is to promote it. Therefore, if the treaty goes through in its present form, we will not be able to have a competition policy or authority or competition laws even if they support the EU aim of encouraging greater competition.

Patricia Hewitt: indicated dissent.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Lady shakes her head. Perhaps she has forgotten what she wrote in 2004, and it might be slightly unfortunate for her that I have kept some of her letters They were very good, and the European Scrutiny Committee relied on them. Has she changed her mind? Does she now support a treaty that overturns her earlier observations and turns the articles that we are discussing from areas of shared competence into areas of exclusive competence?
	Another of the amendments that I have tabled deals with shared competence. As things stand, the whole of the internal market will become an area of shared competence. That is not as bad as it all becoming an area of exclusive competence, but the treaty's definition of shared competence means that, when the EU legislates in this area, we cannot. That goes very much further than what the Government wanted at the time. They tabled an amendment to define shared competence differently, and it stated: Member States shall respect the obligations imposed on them by the relevant Union measures.
	That was sensible, and it meant that member states could not legislate in direct conflict with a specific bit of legislation passed by the EU. That was a narrow definition of shared competence that all of us could support, but the definition in the treaty goes much wider. The whole area is therefore vulnerable: if the EU legislates in that competence, member states cannot. Once again, that shows that the treaty amounts to an enormous transfer of power, from Parliament and the people whom we represent to the EU.
	With those observations, I support amendment No. 237 and the associated amendments, and urge the Committee to vote accordingly.

Ian Lucas: I strongly oppose amendment No. 237. We had an instructive debate earlier this afternoon, and the amendment, too, is instructive, because it goes to the heart of the problem facing the Conservative party in 2008.
	The Opposition seem to believe in the single market, but for the UK only. Essentially, in addition to the powers that will exist at EU level, amendment No. 237 would give the UK Government power to legislate in specific areas within the single market. Of course, if the UK Government could legislate in that way in the single market, other Governments across the European Union would want to do the same. That would drive a coach and horses through the entire concept of the single market. It would break down access to the markets that create jobs in the communities that we represent.
	I have been sitting in the Chamber waiting to talk about the single market for a considerable time, because it is an extremely important issue for the individuals whom I represent. It is of vital concern to everyone in Wrexham. It is not an abstract constitutional concept; it is about people's livelihood, future, wealth, and education. It is about the way in which they live their lives. Since 1997, when a Government who believe in the single market and the balance of social protection came to power, there has been a civilised improvement to the lives of the people whom I represent. The Conservative party does not understand that. It has no concept of which issues are important to the people I represent.
	I was appalled to hear what the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said about de-industrialisation. I will tell him about de-industrialisation: it is what happened when I was growing up in Tyneside in the 1980s. I took advantage of the single market and went to work in Germany because there were no jobs in Tyneside. De-industrialisation happened in Wrexham, the community that I represent, where 20 per cent. of the population were unemployed. Today, that figure is only 2 to 3 per cent. One of the big issues in Wrexham now is people from other EU member states travelling to the town to work. We do not have de-industrialisation. Let me tell the Conservative party why Labour won the last three general elections: it is because we have success

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the large group of amendments on which he should focus his remarks.

Ian Lucas: The amendment is essentially about imposing additional burdens on the single market. The Opposition need to be honest about their position. The Conservative party does not believe in the single market; it is a protectionist party, and it is proposing a protectionist measure. There is no question about that. Anyone who can read can see that set out in black and white.

Mark Harper: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, how does he explain the fact that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who did some of the negotiation for the Government, tried to change the constitution by doing exactly what our amendment proposes? The difference is that he failed.

Ian Lucas: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath, because I believe that the proposal is protectionist and should be opposed.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Does he agree that by strengthening the EU institutions' powers on the competition rules that are necessary for the internal market, the treaty will allow Britain to ensure that its businesses can get access to markets in other parts of the European Union where protectionist tendencies have been all too evident? The Opposition claim to oppose those tendencies, but they do not support the strengthening of the EU powers that is needed if we are to counter them.

Ian Lucas: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The reason why companies such as Wockhardt of India, Sharp of Japan, and Ipsen Biopharm of France have moved into Wrexham is that it is in the European Union and has access to a market of 500 million people, and they wish to export. Many of the manufacturers in my constituency, where unemployment has fallen from 20 per cent. under the Conservatives to 2 or 3 per cent., are exporting. They are manufacturing and exporting in the single market.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent exposition from the perspective of Wrexham. Does he agree that 68 per cent. of Welsh exports go to the EU, and over 500 companies in Wales export to the EU? To go down the track proposed by the Opposition would lead to another Tory recession in Wales.

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend is right. Wales benefits hugely from the single market and from the EU.
	The contribution by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was instructive. He made an excellent speech, which should be read by anyone who suggests that the Conservative party is moving towards a position in the centre. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely out of step with all those at present sitting on the official Opposition Benches.
	Protectionism will not bring jobs to my constituency. I oppose it absolutely. It is the wrong way to go. What we need is a balanced approach, as set out in article 2 of the treaty of Lisbon, which takes into account social responsibilities and social rights, balanced by a successful internal market. The amendment must fall.

Mark Harper: I start by picking up seamlessly from where the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) finished. It is worth noting brieflyI shall not labour the pointthat one of the benefits that Welsh companies have had is some of the objective 1 funding, which has done nothing more than move some of the jobs from constituencies like mine, in England but on the border with Wales, a few miles down the M4. It has not been job creation so much as job moving.

Ian Lucas: On a point of clarification, Wrexham has not benefited at any stage from objective 1 funding.

Mark Harper: I was not referring specifically to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the point about Wales generally, which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made. I know for a fact that many companies in Wales have had some of that funding. Instead of locating in constituencies like mine, they have moved to constituencies in Wales. There has not been a net benefit to the UK at all. The funding has simply moved the jobs around.
	I shall speak to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, starting with amendment No. 237. As I said briefly in an intervention, the Governmentand the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was working on behalf of the Government at the timewanted to do exactly what our amendment says. I shall read out an amendment that he tabled at the Convention, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) served.
	The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath stated:
	The Community does not have exclusive competence in relation to measures to ensure free movement in the internal market. . . If the Community were to have exclusive competence . . . Member States would have no power to take any measures (e.g., in relation to the protection of health or consumer protection) which could affect free movement, nor to establish rules to promote competition.
	We shall even be restrained from taking measures to create a more competitive market if the exclusive competence measures go forward.
	The right hon. Member for Neath made the point that
	Member States currently exercise powers in these areas. The Community has power to harmonise the rules in these areas, but authority to take action . . . is . . . shared.
	That is a perfectly sensible arrangement. Maintaining the status quo will hardly lead to all the appalling outcomes that some Labour Members have tried to scare people with.
	One of the key points, which was not touched on in the debate on the motion and has so far been dealt with only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, is that competition is not an end in itself. On that I agree with one or two Labour Members. The purpose of a competitive market is to make our businesses more able to compete not just within Europe, but with the rest of the world. As a number of hon. Members said, Europe currently accounts for a significant chunk of the world economy and a significant chunk of world trade, but those of my generation are looking at what will happen over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Because of the economic growth in other parts of the world, we need to make sure that we win business in India, China, Russia and the fast-growing markets in south America such as Brazil and Mexico, and that we continue to do so in the United States, which will continue to grow very fast.
	My concern is that this debate is in danger of becoming not little EnglanderI have heard that phrase thrown over from the Labour Benchesbut little European. We are focusing on the European market to the exclusion of the world outside. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells highlighted a danger of regulationif we regulate within the European Union thinking only of the EU, we could handicap ourselves in competing in a global market.

Doug Henderson: I want to make a serious business point, not a party political one. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there will be temptations in a global world and global market for a company such as Airbus to source from areas with a cheap labour supply, provided that everything else is in order, and that it would be difficult to counteract that? Airbus, however, is in no way constrained by basic regulation in the EU; it can still compete internationally with Boeing. If there are constraints, they are to do with labour costs, not over-regulation.

Mark Harper: I do not think that the industry and companies chosen by the hon. Gentleman are a terribly good example. They are very important to our economy and that of the US, but that industry and both those companies are heavily subsidised, either directly by the taxpayer or, in the case of Boeing, indirectlyit is allegedthrough defence contracts and so forth. Governments are already heavily involved in those companies because of direct or indirect subsidies, so they are not a terribly good example of competitive businesses.
	Before I came to the House, I worked for an American multinational that competed and had manufacturing operations across the world, including some in Europe. I know some of the realities of business and how it is conducted around the world. I am keen for British companies, those based in Britain employing British workers, and companies owned by British people, to be successful globally. That is one of my concerns.
	My right hon. Friend cited the EU's own estimate of the cost of regulation compared with the cost of the single market. I just caution Members on both sides to remember that however important the single market is today, it will become relatively less important for British companies as we go forward, simply because of the fast growth around the world.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made the point that some of the countries currently competing on the basis of cheap labour costs, such as India and China, are rapidly industrialising and want to compete at a higher level of added value. They are looking at design and moving up the food chain, as it were. We have to make sure that we sell to them, and they will be good competitors.
	That is my concern about giving the EU exclusive competence in this area. There is a role for a British Government, still able to legislate in this area, to be moving faster and to be a good example of moving things forward. One of the tragedies of the EU is that the Government have not been successful, with others, in moving that agenda forward.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. In the context of what he is saying, does he agree that maintaining a more flexible labour market and less regulation is essential not only for the health of Britain's economy but for the wider EU economy? Within the EU, we present a competitive challenge that sets the direction and tone that the EU has to try to meet. That allows the rest of the EU to compete globally.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is good if, within the EU, countries have the flexibility to think about more competitive economic policies and to set each other challenging goals to demonstrate what is possible in the world.
	Just before my hon. Friend made that important point, I was going to mention the previous Lisbon process and the Lisbon European Council of March 2000. This is particularly relevant to this group of amendments. The Council's aim was to
	make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.
	That is exactly what hon. Members on both sides of the House have been talking about today.
	However, the Government carried out their own study last year, and in January 2007 the Treasury and the then Department for Trade and Industry published a joint assessment of the single market. Among its findings were that
	the rate of progressin terms of strengthening and deepening the Single Markethas slowed down.
	The key points were that
	Europe still lags behind its main competitors, notably the US,
	that the long-standing challenge that I have just outlined was a far-off aspiration, and that
	competition can be expected to become more intense, with the rapidly emerging industrialising economies of India and China catching up fast.
	That is exactly our concern. Since this Government have been in office, they and other European Governments have set themselves the right challengeto make Europe more globally competitive. However, according to their own assessment of just one year ago, they have comprehensively failed to meet the goal set during the previous Lisbon discussions.
	One of the challenges for a future British GovernmentI think that it will probably have to be ours, because this one has simply failedwill be to set the bar higher, and to challenge Europe to be more globally competitive.

Rob Marris: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he and I would draw completely opposite conclusions from the research to which he has referred? My conclusion is that the current European Union framework relating to competition and the knowledge-based economy mentioned at the Lisbon 2000 Council has not worked, so we need to change things. The difference between us is that he would change them by what I would regard as the somewhat protectionist domestication of this stuff, whereas I would do it through the EU reform treaty. We agree that we need change; it is simply a question of what change we need.

Mark Harper: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been paying attention. I was not talking about a British Government legislating domestically in a protectionist direction; I was talking about moving in a pro-competitive direction and setting the bar higher, so as to set a powerful example for other European countries to follow.
	I want to touch briefly on trade matters, and to remind Members that we do not have a trade policy any more, because such policy is now effectively governed by the European Union. We rely on influencing the single Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, to make good agreements on our behalf. Using that model, however, the evidence is that some of the recent agreements have not been particularly successful. We all remember the agreements of a few years ago on textiles and shoes. They were protectionist in nature, so as to protect some of the southern European countries, and they damaged poorer countries in the third world. We should be giving those countries a leg up by trading with them, yet our agreements actually put poorer workers there out of work.
	Those were very protectionist measures, and I do not want to see that kind of thing in the competitive field. I want the British Government to be pro-competitive, and I would like to see a bit more of that ability on the trade side. I want us to set a good example. That is why I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, and why I do not support the Government's approach.

Colin Burgon: As ever, Mrs. Heal, I hang on your every word. You have told us to be precise and to the point, so I shall try to do that. I know that many other Members wish to speak.
	I rise to speak to amendment No. 224, which has been tabled in my name and those of other enlightened colleagues. It might appear to be a technical amendment, but I would argue that it goes to the very heart of the debate that many of us have wanted to have during the passage of the Bill. We are essentially arguing for a social Europe, rather than a neo-liberal Europe.
	The amendment deals with a provision in article 2, paragraph 158 of the Lisbon treaty, which replaces the old article 133 establishing the common commercial policy. That part of the treaty forms the underpinning for the single market. The new article 188 includes the existing provision for a special committee appointed by the Council to advise the Commission when negotiating trade agreements. No doubt hon. Members are thinking that this sounds a bit boring and bureaucratic, but it is a tremendously exciting subjectthey should not be put off by the anaesthetising language that usually emanates from Europe. I can already sense the vibration going round the Chamber.
	The so-called article 133 committee, perhaps to be known as the article 188 committee if the Bill is passed, is one of the most serious concerns among the international development non-governmental organisations. Ministers have constantly cited those NGOs when praying in aid their support for a few of the treaty provisions in the development aid sections of the treaty, although I think that they have somewhat over-egged the pudding. Either way, the Trade Justice Movement, representing all the major NGOs and trade unions and including the TUC, has this afternoon issued a new statement on the treaty outlining its broad concerns about the trade sections of the Bill, in particular its objection to the operation of the article 133 committee. It is fair to say that the Trade Justice Movement supports the thrust of my amendment, and I hope that the Minister will take it as seriously now as the Foreign Secretary did when he mentioned it in support of his arguments on Second Reading. Its concern is that the European Union's role in international trade is perhaps the biggest single force behind global neo-liberalism. At the same time, international trade is also perhaps the biggest single role of the EU.
	However, that transfer of power to the EU has not been accompanied by a comparable increase in transparency, democracy or accountability, especially not to this Parliament. Indeed, Commissioner MandelsonI nearly called him Comrade Mandelsonis now one of the world's most powerful bureaucrats, and he will be even more so once this treaty is passed with the provisions for exclusive competence on trade. At this stage, I will resist a launch into a critique of neo-liberalism and move swiftly on. One influence that member states do still have over Commissioner Mandelson is through our representation on the article 133 committee, yet that committee is even less democratically accountable to us than even other EU institutions.
	Most Members will be aware of the role of the article 133 committee, but in case one or two do not, I will summarise it. It scrutinises, amends and approves Commission proposals for EU negotiating mandates on trade arrangements. Its members attend the international negotiations as part of the EU delegation, and they are usually the largest single delegation at World Trade Organisation talks. Indeed, I believe that 800 EU representatives attended the last WTO talks, which demonstrates the EU's sheer power in the WTO. The committee agrees EU position papers in principle which are, as I understand itthe Minister will put me right if I am not correctpassed for formal approval, first, by the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which again comprises unelected bureaucrats, and then by the Council, where they finally reach elected Ministers representing our national Governments. However, approval usually comes at what is called in Euro-jargon an A point, which means that the policies are endorsed without discussion.
	Over the years, more and more issues have become settled by the article 133 committee, and Ministers rarely debate EU negotiating mandates at the political level. Nor do we have any power in this Parliament to mandate the Minister, let alone officials. We cannot even find out how people voted, because the committee does not seem to take formal votes. It seems very hard to get information about the committee. I understand that we are represented on it, but we still cannot find out the necessary information. It deliberates in secret and publishes neither agenda nor minutes, and records of how decisions are taken are not made available to the public.
	It is true that copies of outcomes of meetings can be requested by members of the public, but they take several weeks to arrive and are so heavily censored as to be meaningless. For example, about two thirds of the text is often deleted, and all references to the positions taken by participants are simply blacked out. It is therefore impossible to hold our Government to account for the positions that they take in our name.

Rob Marris: Perhaps I have misunderstood my hon. Friend's amendment. The situation as regards the article 133 committee is worrying, but his amendment would remove from the treaty provisions that would make the special committee more accountable. Article 207 in the consolidated texts of the treaties says:
	The Commission shall report regularly to the special committee
	that is the bit my hon. Friend wishes to remove
	and to the European Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
	Would his amendment not remove the accountability that he feels is currently lacking?

Colin Burgon: In many respects, my amendment is a tactical response to drag into the public domain one of the key issues that we should be facing, and the very fact that we are discussing these matters means that we have achieved that.
	People may say, Let's use the EU's freedom of information legislation to find out about the 133 committee. A group of Irish parliamentarians recently made 32 written requests, submitted under the legislation, to find out about the article 133 committee and the Irish representatives on it. However, 31 of those requests were refused.

Richard Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Colin Burgon: No, I am just drawing to a close.
	I am minded at this stage not to press my amendment to a Division[Hon. Members: Oh no!] Members should not tempt me. First, I want to hear the Minister's opinion on these questions. Secondly, how can he assist us in opening up EU trade policy? Can he promise that the crucial information in question will be laid before the House? Will we be told who represents us on the committee, what their mandate is, what positions they will argue for and how they have voted? Will he guarantee to lay before the House the outcomes of the meetings and other relevant documents?
	To be helpful, I shall not press my amendment to a vote, but we should revisit the matter because it is really important. The Minister may not agree with me on a wide range of issues, but I hope that I will get some response to some of the points that I have raised.

William Cash: Today is Ash Wednesday, which is the day on which we ought to repent. I went to a service this morning in Westminster cathedral. I am going to repent the mistake that I made in 1986 of voting for the Single European Act. It was then called the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is not unlike the name of the Bill we are debating, except we are talking not about European Communities but about the European Union. I want to put that on the record because my hon. Friendmy dear friendthe Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who voted against that Act, knows what it means for me to say what I say now.
	I shall say one other thing, however. I tabled an amendment to that 1986 Bill that stipulated that nothing in the Act should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. As I was going through the Lobby, a certain other person came to join methe predecessor of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who has intervened a lot in this debate. It was Mr. Enoch Powell, and he said to me, I have put my name to your amendment. And those two names stood there on the Order Paper, completely alone on the sovereignty of this Parliament with regard to the 1986 legislation.
	On 23 April 1986, I made several points about the internal market. I said that I had
	some reservations about how we might move to majority voting.
	I also pointed outto pick up the points of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)that the CBI and other trade organisations should make proper representations. In the internal market, it is essential that representations are properly made so that we can respond on matters such as exclusive competence, shared competence and so onthe subject matter of the amendments.
	At that time, I spoke after the then Minister for Trade. I said that we must put our British interests first. I emphasised:
	We live in a global economy but have to keep our interests ahead of other people's. We must have regard to our own interests while working in the EC.
	I believe that that remains the case. In my short speech, I also mentioned that I had recently served on the Financial Services Bill Standing Committee, in which all the issues that crop up in the group of amendments arose. I said that
	we shall be exposed to international pressures in investments, capital movements, competition, biotechnology, intellectual property... banking, financial services, and telecommunications.
	I said that, in all such matters

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. With that amount of knowledge, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could address his remarks to the amendments.

William Cash: I am simply making the pointI am not trying to avoid the rulingthat, ultimately, I had to say:
	We must learn to live in the modern world... of protectionist pressures,
	which are inherent in the problems of exclusive and shared competence that we are considering today. I continued:
	We must bear in mind the consequences of giving legal effect to the proposals in the Single Act. The European Court of Justice will be involved. We must be sure that we know what we are doing. Who will control it all? The Government? Parliament? The Commission?[ Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 378-9.]
	By Parliament, I meant this Parliament. I simply wanted to get that point on the record.
	I repent because it has become abundantly clear from all our debates in the past few days that the European Court of Justice and our inability to invade the acquis communautaire, unless we have a notwithstanding formula, will prevent us from achieving our objectives.
	The Lisbon agenda has been mentioned several times and I especially commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who enlarged the debate to encompass subjects that matter. The internalisation of the market is in the framework of the current proposals. We are dealing with an internal market but also with protectionism within it. There have been several exchanges about Mr. Sarkozy's comments. Our main objectives should be to look outwards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, to a globalised economy, as I attempted to predictI believe correctlysome 20 years ago in 1986. I believed that the single market was intended to operate in that way. It has not worked in that way. Indeed, it has internalised, not externalised and it has therefore failed. That is why the Lisbon agenda has failed.
	The Minister for Europe is not personally responsible for the documents that relate to the Lisbon agenda, which were submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee in January. However, he is representing the Government and I simply want to repeat the European Scrutiny Committee's comments about those documents. We were given an analysis and I am sorry to say that we had to be critical of the Government's response to them. In a nutshell, we said that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury could not justify the report that she gave. That related to the entire Lisbon agenda and every single matter dealing with competition policy and the re-launching of all the initiatives that had failed since 2000, in respect of which Will Hutton, the rapporteur and an extremely distinguished economist, made some critical comments to the European Reform Forum, which I helped to initiate.
	We in the Committee said that the degree of explanation in the
	two...paragraphs in the Treasury's Explanatory Memorandum, one of which is little more than an elaboration of the titles of the seven documents and annexes concerned, is a wholly inadequate description of the content of the almost 400 pages of these papers.
	The Committee asked the Exchequer Secretary to ensure that the documents would explain things properly in the future, and so on. I mention that because it is made clear in the documents that those who run the European Community are aware of a thing called reform fatigue. There is a reluctance to tackle issues that require reform, and we are not getting the reform required.
	Let me turn to the question of exclusive competenceI shall deal with shared competence in a minute. The article in questionarticle 2Bconcerns the enhanced approach through which the Union will grab and maintain new areas of exclusive competence. In particular, it will dictate competition rules. We heard an interesting speech from the erstwhile temporary leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), but as I pointed out to him, he missed the main point. Although he explained the layer upon layer of development of the internal market, the reality is that we have reached an apex and have to retrieve the situation in order to prevent the over-regulation that is literally destroying British business and European business, too.
	In fact, the leviathan has engulfed the European single market. That is the problem, and it cannot be changed except by invading those regulations and the acquis communautaire, and by ensuring that we reform all the regulations

John Gummer: rose

William Cash: My right hon. Friend will have to restrain himself for just one second. I know that he does not agree with me, but that does not bother me one jot.
	The reality is that the 450 billion of over-regulation described by Mr. Verheugen, who is the commissioner responsible, speaks for itself. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) correctly pointed out, if we evaluate the cost-benefit of the European Unionthat is, assess the amount claimed as benefits of the Union against the actual costs described by Mr. Verheugenthe answer is that the European Union is not functioning as it was claimed when I voted for the Single European Act in 1986. However, I am delighted to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), because I know that he will attempt to disagree with me.

John Gummer: I was present at exactly the same service as my hon. Friend this morning, but I am not saying that I was guilty of voting in the way that I did, either at that time or since. Indeed, I have been consistent. However, as a business man working over the whole of Europe and advising large numbers of international companies working in Europe, I have to tell him that the picture of the European Union that he has given is totally foreign to anyone who does the job. It is about time that people talking about business in the House showed that they knew about it and did it, rather than making the sort of comment that one can make only if one has no knowledge of how business actually works.

William Cash: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has said that. As it happens, for 20 years before I became a Member of this House I was advising many, if not most, of the biggest companies in the UK on the whole question of the impact of legislation. I have also written many articles on the manner in which business, as I mentioned in a speech in 1986, has failed to concentrate on getting the European regulatory system right. That is why I was so crossas was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wellswhen Lord Jones as he now is came as Digby Jones to the European Scrutiny Committee and had the brass neck to say that we were not doing our job properly, when the CBI under his director-generalship had actually made no representations to us at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal should therefore be more careful about the amount of experience to which he alludes.

Peter Bone: Speaking as someone who ran a manufacturing plc, which exported all over the world, including to Europe, I have to say that I recognise the analysis of my hon. Friend, not that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but in a spirit of amity with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who I find to be a most engaging person, and because he went to church this morningeven though he did not repentlet me say how glad I am to move back to the issue of exclusive competence. If we carried on any further with our current topic of debate, I suspect that the Chairman might well intervene and encourage us to return to the issue of exclusive competence.
	As I was saying before I was diverted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, the Union will grab and maintain new areas of exclusive competence. In particular, the Union will dictate competition rules, misleadingly justified under the functioning of the internal market as an exclusive competence. Currently, article 5 of the treaty on the European Union stresses that in areas that do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity
	only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.
	That represents a big problem, because it makes certain assumptions. First, it assumes that subsidiarity can be applied, but as I have said in previous debates, I simply do not believe that it ever has been. Secondly, there is the problem that somebody has to judge what is being better achieved. Indeed, it has not been determined in which areas the Community has exclusive competence, which has inevitably led to legal disputes.
	The European Court of Justice has been recognising the exclusive power of the Community within certain areas where it had not previously had competence. Now it has those competences and the new article is a reflection of ECJ practices and existing case law. The European Community common policy approach will take greater precedence than British obligations to third countries and Commonwealth countries, for example. That matter relates to what the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) said a few moments ago about third countries and Commonwealth countries and the representations of non-governmental organisations. I take a great interest in matters pertaining to aid, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who chairs one of our policy groups on international aid. We should take very careful note of the way in which economic partnership agreements are working and of the damage that that is doing. As I was saying, European Community common policy will take greater precedence than British obligations to third countries and Commonwealth countries, and the European Court of Justice has said that we would
	no longer have the right
	to maintain existing relations.
	That is the seriousness of the situation. The European Court has said, in relation to our obligations to third countries and Commonwealth countries, at the very time when we should expand our interest in the globalised economyparticularly in relation to India and its new-found opportunities, Malaysia, the all-party group on which I chair, and all the other Commonwealth countries with which we have a common heritagethat we will no longer have the right to maintain our existing relations. Control over the customs union, establishing the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, monetary policy, common commercial policy, the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policyall are locked into the Union. On the last of those, the Union will be allowed further to regulate catches or ban fishing in several areas. To conserve stocks, therefore, fishing quotas will be further reduced. Moreover, the Lisbon treaty introduces the Union's exclusive competence to conclude an international agreement when
	its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.
	Against that background, this is not a game. In relation to the realities of competition, it involves the whole question of the extent to which we are able to succeed as a country. As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I simply do not agree that the whole of the European Union has been a success. As many statistics and figures demonstrate, regrettably, the European Union is dropping down the league. The predictions are that, largely because of over-regulation, the failure of initiatives such as the Lisbon agenda, and the failure of the integration process, by 2020 the EU'S actual GDP will take us even further down the league table. That will affect our constituents. We must therefore spring the trap and start renegotiating the treaties, and get ourselves into a relationship of an association of nation states.
	I would strongly recommend to Members a fascinating book that has just come out by Professor Paul Taylor, recently a professor of international relations and director of the European Institute at the London School of Economics. He has written about the failure of the European Union integration process. He gives examples of how the European Union has failed in relation to trade and other matters, and effectively argues that that failure has demonstrated that the Eurosceptic arguments, which have been developed over the past 20 years, have been proved right.
	Do I take great satisfaction from that? Twenty years ago, I did make this speech on the Single European Act, and I have not repented of the speech but I have repented of the vote. I take no satisfaction, and never have done, from the failings in the European Community or the European Union. In its origins, it was a good idea. In 1945, people probably would have thought that the European Coal and Steel Community and all the rest of it was the right thing to do. The bottom line, however, is that it has gone in the wrong direction.
	For example, on the question of exclusive competence, I would refer to another European Court of Justice case, Commission  v. Council, case 22-70, concerning a European agreement on road transport, better known as the ERTA case, in which the ECJ delineated the concept of exclusive competence. It stressed that
	each time the Community, with a view to implementing a common policy envisaged by the Treaty, adopts provisions laying down common rules, whatever form these may take... the Member States no longer have the right, acting individually or even collectively, to undertake obligations with third countries which affect those rules or alter their scope.
	This provision in the treaty, with the single personality, will remove from the member states most of their current treaty-making powers in those areas.
	The Lisbon treaty has formalised the idea that member states' competences will be limited once the Union has acted. Article 2C includes the internal market as an area of shared competence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean touched on these issues. The article lists as areas of shared competence the internal market; social policy; economic, social and territorial cohesion; agriculture and fisheries; environment; consumer protection; transport; trans-European networks; energy; the area of freedom; security and justice; common safety concerns in public health matters; research; technology development and space; development co-operation; and humanitarian aid. Energy and space are new Union competences. A vast range of activity that should be in the remit of this Parliament and this Government will be handed over to European control.
	I believe, in a nutshell, that the European Union as a customs union will continue to prevent us from pursuing an independent trade policy. I believe that the rules establishing the internal market will remain the same and that an uncompetitive Europe will continue, with very serious consequences of the kind illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean. The internal-market question is being internalised, and it is not being understood that we live in a global economy in which India, China, Malaysia and other countries are developing just as we developed in the 18th century. We want to work with them in a peaceable fashion.
	Free trade is the essence of peace and prosperity, as Cobden and Bright demonstrated in the mid-19th century. This is the key: we should understand that the rules that are being developedinvolving the concentration of power, the apex of decision making being taken away from the free markets and the decisions becoming the arid, dry, desiccated decisions of the European Court of Justiceare not the way to go. They will not allow us to secure the flexibility in trade that I know is desired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). He wants economic competitiveness, and I wholeheartedly support him in that aspiration. That and the sovereignty issue are two of the reasons why I voted for him in the leadership election.
	We must put our money where our mouth is. We will only secure that economic competitiveness if we change the basis on which the European Union functions, alter the rules relating to the customs union and the internal market, and return to the EFTA system. That has not yet been mentioned today. We should bring back the European Free Trade Association in a modified form. We need an association of nation states working peaceably together, within a framework that enables us to trade not only among ourselves but throughout the global order, as I said in my speech in April 1986.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) has just entered the Chamber. In 1996, with great prescience, he wrote a book about all these issues and the necessity to maintain free trade. He and I had such a firm alliance with others during the entire Maastricht proposals, in part because we eschewed the idea of a European Government and we wanted free trade, liberalised markets and to ensure that the internal market did not become protectionist. That is why we fought that battle.
	The politics of the treaty of Lisbon, the deceit that lay behind its origins, and the manner in which the mandate was imposed upon the people of this country and other European states in defiance of referendums in France and Holland, demonstrate that the politics has been leading the economics. I believe that democracy and freedom of choice must lead, and that this House represents the democracy of this country through its representatives. The politics of choice in politics must, however, be paralleled by the politics of choice in economics. That is what this debate is really about, and I totally agree with the exceptional speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, because he identified the real problem that we must face up to in this globalised world.

Michael Connarty: I am a humanist, not a confessional person, and I must say that because the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is a member of my Committee, I feel that I have a duty of care towards him, but I can only stretch to sympathyI cannot offer him empathy for his speech or for his views on the European Union.
	Judging by the Opposition Front-Bench speech, the point of amendment No. 237 is either to allow the United Kingdom to apply protectionist policies because the Opposition are afraid of the Commission carrying out the functions given under sole competence, or to allow the social structure of this country to be ripped apart by a return to the Conservative policies of the 1980s. I remember the damage done by competitive tendering, when there was an unbelievable imbalance fuelled by the fact that local authorities could not compete for services that other local authorities were providing, but only the private sector could compete to take services away from the public sector. It is a good aspect of the treaty that, along with the protocol which I shall mention later, the Commission are given a duty to secure a balance between competitiveness and the destruction of services by unfair competition.
	Unfortunately, often when I listen to Conservative Front-Bench Members they seem to have to drag in the negotiations on the Convention and the constitution. This is not the constitution; this is the Lisbon treaty, because many things have moved on in Europe since then. The great debate on the services directive was fought and won to exclude the destruction of public services, particularly the health service, from that directive. The protocol that has been added to the treaty was not in the constitution; those protections were not there. The debate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) had in the past reflected a fear of unbridled competition with no protection. It is important that we focus on what we have now, rather than praying in aid past debates and negotiations, because we are in Europe, now and in the future. Unfortunately, Opposition Front-Bench Members often fail to recognise that. I have great respect and affection for the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), but he does keep talking about the past rather than the future.
	I now turn to amendment No. 195 and the Liberal Democrat amendment (a) to it, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The Liberal Democrats are the Janus partythe party of the god with two faces facing in two directions at the same time. The dilemma for the Liberal Democrats is that what we are being shown tonight is the uncaring free-market face, which wants to look towards the more right-wing Conservative voters.

Jeremy Browne: rose

Michael Connarty: I shall let the hon. Gentleman in when I have finished my analysis, because he has the right to take in what I have to say. He said that we should have had the provision in the original treaties and in the original constitutionundistorted competition. When I asked his opinion about the protocol that has been added on services of general interest, which protects the services that would be damaged by undistorted competition, he could not tell me whether the Liberal Democrats supported it or not. His own opinion would appear to be that he does not. It would appear that he wanted what was contained in the unbridled, and I believe destructive, competition policies contained in the four great freedoms in the past. One of those freedoms must be constrained or people are damaged because they are the users of the services that are destroyed.

Jeremy Browne: I merely observe something about the Labour party. I believe that the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon), who made his speech about neo-liberalism, was elected in the same general election as Tony Blair, who was elected Prime Minister three times. The idea that the Labour party speaks with one voice on all these matters is absurd.
	I believe in free market economics, but of course they should be tempered with social constraints to ensure that we live in a civilised society. Free market economics are an important way of generating wealth, and that is why I am in favour of competition within the European Union.

Michael Connarty: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he speaks as a member of the Liberal Democrats Front-Bench team. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, who spoke from the Labour Back Benches, have ever been on the Front Bench. Perhaps I should try to temper the Liberal Front-Bench team's enthusiasm for the free market with the same social concerns that he expresses today. If I have moved on the hon. Gentleman's thinking and that of his party in the right direction, I am happy, because at least I will have done some good work this evening.
	The phrase a duty of care springs to mind when I think of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). When I hear his description of the EU, I am traumatised. If I were to think about his view, I would not sleep well when I go home tonight. I know that he had a distinguished career in the Conservative Front-Bench team. I can only suppose that the Convention was a traumatic experience for him, because he returns again and again to the things that happened. We must talk about what this treaty says and offers, rather than about what happened in the Convention. I do not know whether this is a cathartic experience for him, and for the hon. Member for Stone, but if it rids him of that obsession and removes the worry presented to him by the Convention, I would be pleased for him.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman said that the Convention was a traumatic experience, and indeed it was for everybody, because it totally failed. It failed because it did not stick to its instructions, which were to create a more democratic and simpler Europe, and a Europe closer to its citizens. Instead, it went down the centralising route and it failed at the hands of the French and Dutch electorate. We all ought to be thoroughly ashamed of how that Convention was conducted and of its outcome. I was not traumatisedEurope was.

Michael Connarty: The right hon. Gentleman laboured the point about regulation. I shall give him a book that I have read called The Mad Officials. I kept it because it is worth referring to again and again. It was written in the 1990s by a former senior UK civil servant who pointed out that the regulation madness was actually driven by the UK civil service, because it gold-plated everything that came from Europe. That practice made the regulation weigh much more heavily on our firms and on our legal procedures than it did in other parts of Europe.
	I have seen that effect at first hand in respect of a big petrochemical refinery and petrochemical plant in my constituency. It was formerly a BP plant, but it is now owned by Ineos. The regulations on the gases coming out of its flares are four times stricter than they were in the European directive, because our Departments decided to quadruple the severity of their application. That happens again and again, and it is not necessarily the fault of the EU, but of the way its regulations are added to the law in this country.
	We will be protected from some things if the Commission has sole competence, and some of them have already been mentioned. The new phrase going around Europe is economic patriotism, but it is protectionism. We introduced liberalisation of domestic energy, but that means that the power needed to switch the lights on in this august place, in No. 10 and in the rest of the Seeboard Energy area comes from EDF. But the French had to be threatened with infraction by the Commission before they would liberalise their markets, and that was after the last day of the last month in the directive to which they had signed up. That is why the Commission needs the power. We should not let countries have shared competence, because they will use economic patriotism and obstruction to block the free market that we argue about every time I go to COSAC.
	I will go to Brussels during the recess to argue about energy production and distribution unbundling under the Lisbon agenda. Resistance is now building to the domestic patriotism excuse, but it can be broken down only by giving power to the Commission and not allowing Governments to block it. Our Government will not try to block it very often, but all over Europe other countries will form alliances to try to block the very liberalisation and free market that Conservative Front Benchers say that they want. They can only get it if they give up the power for this country to block changes, so that other countries cannot block changes.
	The postal services directive should be due to be introduced in 2009 throughout Europe, but we introduced it a little early in 2006. That has caused us all problems in our constituencies, but it will not lead to the collapse of the Post Office, as was suggested in the general debate by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). There will be a postal service in the UK, but it should have been able to enter a wider market, using its new slimmed down abilities to win work, in 2009. The general agreement might not come in until 2011, and some countries will not implement it until 2013. That is what happens if the Commission does not have the power to force through the market that we want to work in, as well as live in.
	In the international sphere, the Commission will be responsible for driving forward commercial agreements with the Council, in unanimity. There has been much talk about how the EU has slowed up the benefits for other countries, but the World Trade Organisation is driving the liberalised market internationally. It is the WTO that has been threatening other countries' ability to benefit, but the EU has, for example, been defending the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries by giving them time to move out of their lock-in on certain products. Even at a later stage, they need only be 80 per cent. of the way to a completely liberal market, and that will give them some leeway. The European Union and the Commission are doing a good job in that respect.
	It is important to talk about what the treaty is about and why the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by the Conservatives are inappropriate and unnecessary. I have been going to conferences in Europe for some time now and I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for nine years, with one year as the Chairman. I have regularly attended meetings, often with officials, to see how matters are developing. For all that other Members say that they wish to challenge what happens or how they are interested in the strategy, I am often alone in attending those conferences. There are no other volunteers from this Parliament to go. I know that the one I am going to in a few days is during the recess, and people will be off having a holiday somewhere. It may demonstrate that I am sad, but people do not even want to go when Parliament is sitting. If they did, they could argue their case on the development of the market face to face, across the table with colleagues in the European Union. I commend the Chairman of the Treasury Committee who also often goes alone to argue the case for the UK in those forums.
	I turn now to amendment No. 237 and article 3 of the consolidated treaties, which is called article 2B in the amendment. I am not sure what it is that scares those on the Opposition Front Bench. Even when sole competence is given to the EU, it is quite clear that if we say that we do not want article 2B, which is about
	the establishment of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market,
	that will be because of the sole competence. Article 2 specifically states:
	The Member States shall exercise their competence again to the extent that the Union has decided to cease exercising its competence.
	It also says that member states will be able to do things themselves to carry out the policies that the Commission lays down.
	It is as though the Opposition think that the Commission has a blank sheet and can write any law, which will then somehow be enforced. It is not a blank sheet. There are 27 columns that contain the parts of the Union: the 27 Prime Ministers, Chancellors and Foreign Secretaries. They write the script for the Commission, in the main, and the proposals are carried out on their behalf. The Commission can think up and propose ideas; it cannot carry them through without the Council or the European Parliament, if co-decision making applies. It is as though some organisation out there gives us instructions without our participation, which is nonsense.
	Article 26 of the consolidated treaties, on the internal market, states in paragraph 3:
	The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine the guidelines and conditions necessary to ensure balanced progress in all the sectors concerned.
	That is what happens in the creation of an internal market. The Council decides after a proposal from the Commission what should be put into the internal market rule. Let us consider article 22, under title II of the consolidated treaties, which is entitled, Free movement of goods. It is important that we accept that it says clearly that there should be free movement of goodsand of people. Let me ensure that I make it clear, as I do not want to misquote these wonderful and important articles. Article 28 says that we will provide a customs uniona move that was criticised roundly by the hon. Member for Stoneand that there should be a free movement of goods in that union.
	How can anyone say that the EU is a failure, as the hon. Member for Stone did? It is clear that when the barriers to trade in the EU were brought down, many companies came to the UK so that they could trade in the EU. That was certainly the case in my constituency. At one time, Scotland was the source of more televisions and computers for Europe than any other country in the EU. Those were boom years for the Scottish economy, using the free movement of goods title.

William Cash: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that a customs union is necessary in order to be able to trade between different countries, whether in Europe or in the rest of the world? We need free trade throughout the world to enable people to do exactly what he would like; we do not need a customs union or a European Union, with all these exclusive competences, to do so.

Michael Connarty: If that is the case, why was Scotland a bit of a wasteland for manufacturing under the Conservative Government until we joined the EU? When we joined the EU, Scotland was suddenly part of a larger union with free movement and clear rules about tariff barriers. The treaty contains rules about not only tariff barriers but other technical barriers that tried to stop the free movement. We had the benefits about which I am talking because we moved into the larger free market zone.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Stone can protest from a sedentary position if he likes. He does not like the other parts of the EU, and maybe he does not like parts of the customs union, but it is a fact that his constituents and mine benefitedand continue to benefitfrom being part of that larger union.
	We had some controversy about service liberalisation, which is dealt with in articles 56 to 61 in chapter 3 of title IV. I would be worried about that too if we did not have the protocol on goods of common interest to which I referred earlier, but we need free markets, without barriers, in goods and services, and in services provided by individuals.
	Articles 107 and 108 in chapter 1, section 2 of title VII deal with state aid. They are fundamental to what the Commission will do, and they make very clear what will happen in respect of state aid. Article 107 states:
	Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall...be incompatible with the internal market.
	Every year. the European Scrutiny Committee sees reports that deal with investigations into state aid

William Cash: Here they are!

Michael Connarty: I see that the hon. Member for Stone has the relevant papers. I shall not read from them, but it is the Commission that will break down the barriers and make sure that, in the absence of joint competence, countries will not get away with subsidising their steel industries or transport networks so that they can undermine people in our jurisdictions.
	In the consolidated text, chapter 1 of title VII contains rules on competition. Along with section 2, article 107 of the same title, it is fundamental to what we believe in. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) referred earlier to the rules on competition policy. The text also states that the Council shall act unanimously, and then lists the areas in which it has unanimity when it comes to controlling the instructions given to the Commission on matters of competition, and especially international competition.
	We have a framework for policy making that ensures that the Commission is driven by the interests of all 27 countries, including the UK. To take that away would mean that increasingly we would become a victim of economic patriotism and protectionism. That is why I am happy to support the Government in accepting this element of the treaty.

Peter Lilley: It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who brings enormous knowledge to these matters. He focused on the way in which the single market works and, unlike the other Labour Members who have spoken, he did not try very hard to portray the amendments as being fundamentally opposed to the single market.
	Conservative Members are not fundamentally opposed to the single market. We have always believed in it, and even my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has confessed that he voted for it. I was moved to look up some of the speeches that I made when I was a Minister. When I was still Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I said that Britain had been a most enthusiastic and consistent supporter of the single market, and that we led in implementing the single programme. I added that the philosophy of the single market was very much compatible with Britain's vision of the future of the European Community.
	In 1992, I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with responsibility for supervising the introduction of the single market and the response to it. I said that the single market programme had been a success, in part thanks to our enthusiastic and consistent support. I added that we had fought successfully to keep the single market open to the rest of the world rather than building a fortress Europe, and noted that we had seen off proposals to refuse foreign banks licences in Europe if they did not reciprocate to European banks. I also said that we had argued successfully against giving favours to certain firms as Euro champions.
	We were somewhat over-optimistic in those days. The European Commission's Cecchini report forecast that the single market alone would add a minimum of 4 per cent. and a maximum of 7 per cent. to Europe's gross domestic product. I looked on the internet for reviews of how the Cecchini report had worked in practice. Reviews showed that there was no sign of any impact on the growth rate across Europe, and certainly no sign of growth of the magnitude forecast in the report.
	I do not say that the single market has been a failure. It has not been as successful as we hoped, but it has made a contribution. However, we must ask why it did not make as much of a contribution as the European Community, the European Commission and optimists such as I hoped it would. That bears heavily on the amendments before us. There are a number of answers to the question. First, the single market was over-hyped. That is fair enough; people always over-hype things, and I think that we can forgive that, in retrospect. Secondly, sadly, we did not foresee the over-regulation of the single market. Far from being a purely deregulatory removal of barriers and borders between countries, it became a mechanism through which the European Commission could regulate, harmonise and introduce new burdens on business. That has offset many of the gains that we hoped would result from the removal of barriers to business.
	Thirdly, we overstated the size and scale of barriers to business between countries. The barriers had already been removed through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and successive trade reforms, so there was not much gain to be made. I can demonstrate that by referring to a speech that I did not give. When I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I planned to give a speech emphasising the benefits that British companies had gained from the introduction of the single market. I asked my officials for specific examples of what British companies were doing as a result of the introduction of the single market that they had not been able to do previously.
	My officials came up with lots of examples of things that British companies were doing that they had not done previously, but on inspection it was found that the companies could have done them earlier. It was not the single market programme that had opened up the possibility of doing those things. I said, Well, let's get lots of businesses in and ask them, so that I'll have examples to put in this speech. We asked businesses from the service industries, where we hoped the greatest gains would be made, the privatised utilities and other sectors. I am afraid that none of them was able to give a single example of anything that they were doing that they had not been able to do before. However, lots of them were doing things that they had not done before, so the psychological impact of the single market was wholly beneficial. It gave British companies the aspiration and the vision to see that there were opportunities on the continent that they could take, but the actual measures were not as beneficial as we hoped.
	It would be sad if the single market had taken people's eyes off the other markets in the world that offered greater opportunities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, one of the sad things about today's debate is how few, if any, references there have beenapart from those made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper)to India and China, the really big markets on which our industries ought to focus, as they are fast-growing and offer enormous opportunities.
	It has been suggested that if the amendment is made, it will have no effect. It is claimed that if we persist with it until the bitter end, it will lead to us not ratifying the Lisbon treaty; the treaty will therefore fall, and we will gain nothing. However, the impact of making and persisting with the amendment, thereby not ratifying the Lisbon treaty, would be much the same as the impact made by the French and Dutch people's rejection of the constitution. They won major changes. I know that they are major, because the Government say that there are major differences between the constitution and the treaty. Funnily enough, they have resulted in major improvements for Britain, although the Dutch and the French wanted to make changes that take us in the opposite direction to that which we tend to want to take. Or are the Government saying that negligible gains resulted from the rejection of the constitution, and that we would therefore get negligible gains and improvements if we sent our negotiators back to gain improvements?
	The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that when the Dutch and the French were given a referendum and rejected the original constitution they secured major improvements, but that if we, through the House passing amendments to the Bill, were to cause the Lisbon treaty not to be ratified, we would not in the subsequent renegotiations be able to get significant improvements to the single market and other aspects of the Bill.
	I hope the House will take seriously the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), and that it will have no compunction about passing them, amending the Bill and amending the treaty. That can only lead to an improvement in what is still the European constitution implemented by other means, and it would be our duty and, above all, the duty of Government Members, who promised a referendum. If there is to be no referendum, the very least they can do is amend and send the treaty back for renegotiation.

Jon Trickett: I understand that we are operating under time constraints. I shall speak to amendment No. 223 in my name, which refers to our earlier debate on health.
	The House may well have listened with respect when my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), who used to be Secretary of State for Health, spoke about the potential effects of the health directive that was published in draft form in December last year. My right hon. Friend described the effects on the NHS as extremely damaging because the directive envisages the possibility that the single market will extend into health provision across the whole of the Union, including the United Kingdom, thereby allowing citizens to cross boundaries.
	Following the Watt decision in the European Court of Justice, the directive envisages that citizens of one country travelling in the jurisdiction of another may seek health care and bill back to their home country the cost of that care, whether or not their GP considered such health care urgent and necessary. The dangers of such a policy are immediately clear and I do not need to spell them out. The draft directive causes great concern. I tabled the amendment to probe the Government's position, not necessarily to press the amendment to a Division.
	There seem to be two competing principles at stake. I accept that the Lisbon treaty makes it clear, as have previous legal provisions, that health is a matter reserved to the home country. In some ways that is clearer in the Lisbon treaty than it was previously. However, there are other references in the Lisbon treaty that appear to give a certain degree of competence to the Commission in relation to health matters.
	The problem is that when the European Court is making decisions, as I remarked yesterday on another matter, it is asked to balance a number of competing principles. One of those principles is the one that we have been discussing all daythe internal market. Whenever goods or services are tradeable, as health now seems to be in the United Kingdomlamentably, a market in the provision of health care is being created in the United Kingdomthey become subject to the principles of the internal market directorate. There are therefore two competing principles: the principle that health should be reserved to the national Government, and the principle of the internal market. Those two principles conflict.
	Then there is the intervention of the terrible twinsthe European Court of Justice and the Commission. The trade commissioners include the former right hon. Member for Hartlepool, whom we know well. We have seen the process operate in a number of ways. First, as we discussed yesterday, the ECJ has applied the principle of the internal market above other principles. The beginning of a wedge is driven into the legal provision governing how the EU operates; the wedge is then driven further by the commissioners, particularly those responsible for the internal market.
	In the Watt case, a UK citizen received medical treatment abroad without having consulted her GP. The treatment was delivered and paid for; the individual must have had access to resources. She sought repayment from the NHS. The ECJ looked carefully into the matter and concluded that because health has become a tradeable service, the principles of the internal market must apply to it. That is the substance of the Watt judgment.
	The commissioners dealing with the internal market then said that notwithstanding the fact that health is a supposedly reserved matter for each home Government, the court had indeed ruled that the principles of the internal market must apply. A draft directive, published in December last year, was quickly withdrawn when it was realised that it might be contentious and could cause problems for the ratification of the treaty in the UK Parliament and others. Nevertheless, we have had sight of the draft directive, which extends the principles of the free market and marketisation to health.
	The principles of the NHS are that treatment should go first to those with the greatest need and that it should be free at the point of service. We have certainly rejected the principle of co-paymentthat the patient should pay something, as well as the health service.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: I will, but only briefly, as the Whips are asking me to sit down sharply.

David Heathcoat-Amory: This is important. The hon. Gentleman's precise concerns about single market powers being used to interfere in health provision were spotted in the drafting of the constitution by working group 5, on which I sat. However, its recommendations to amend the single market powers to take account of those concerns were overridden and ignored in the final document. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is too late unless he votes for the amendment to overturn that aspect of the treaty, in which case there could be a rethink along the lines proposed. Is he prepared to do that?

Jon Trickett: That intervention was slightly odd, as I have tabled precisely such an amendment; I am speaking to amendment No. 223. It says that for the avoidance of doubtto use a Government expression on another matterhealth will not be subject to the internal market provisions.
	I was referring to the Commission's draft directive, which clearly extends the principle of open competition and marketisation to the health service. Perhaps the Opposition parties are perfectly comfortable with such a proposal, but it cannot be right and I cannot believe that they would support the idea that such a change should be imposed on the United Kingdom's national health service through an ECJ ruling, which I think inappropriate, and its reinforcement by the Commission. If the NHS were to distribute its services differently, that would normally be the subject of a debate during a general election. The people would decide whether to vote for a party, such as the Conservative party, that proposed such a system, or for one such as ours that rebutted it. I would have thought that Members on both sides of the House agreed that to subvert the NHS's founding principles in this way was an undemocratic and inappropriate way to change health service provision.
	I want to draw to the attention of the House the Commission's response to the objections that were expressed in an early-day motion that I tabled some time ago. I do not have time to read out the whole text, but the Commission says that some stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential of cross-border health care to alter the overall choices of member states with regard to the mechanisms of control of access to health care. It goes on to say that, be that as it may, it may not be a bad thing if competition is introduced, because that may lead to the shortening of waiting lists, the increase of choice for patients and a shift from systems of distributions of health care such as the one in the NHS which is free at the point of delivery, to mechanisms involving such things as co-payments.
	Co-payments were clearly rejected at the general election. They will no doubt be the subject of debate in future, but I hardly think it appropriate for the Commissionan unelected bodyto echo the voices of the marketisers in the ECJ by saying that the UK's health care is inappropriately distributed and that the mechanisms by which it is introduced should therefore be subject to change by what I regard as the inappropriate use of internal market principles, which have a generic application, rather than by the application of the principle that the United Kingdom Parliament should decide these matters. The way in which our health services should be distributed is a reserved matter.
	That is the burden of my case. It is important for Labour voices to speak up for our national health service, and to say that it is something that we created and that we are proud of. We will fight for the principle that the distribution of health care should be done according to the principles of the forefathers and foremothers of the health service. Beyond that, however, there are major questions to be asked about the way in which the European Union is determining policy. If all the nations have agreed that health should be a reserved matter, it cannot possibly be right to adopt a policy of driving a wedge in so that the ECJ can apply other principles to that reserved matter and gain competence in that area, or for the Commission to say, Well, the ECJ has established a principle, and we intend to build on it. Yet that is precisely what is happening.
	The purpose of my amendment is to allow us to have this debate tonight and to listen carefully to what the Minister says. I have to say that his earlier response was not entirely satisfactory, although he did go some way towards giving us some reassurance. I shall listen to any comments that he makes when he winds up the debate. I want to say to him, with all due respect, that, unless we are given clear assurances that the Commission will not be allowed to delve into health in this way, I shall seek to table an amendment at a future stage in the Bill's proceedings, particularly on the health service.

Richard Shepherd: I was grateful for that intervention by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), and I want to refer quickly to what the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) said about accountability. The whole construct is not about accountability in any sense that this House, this country, this electorate or this people understand. No Minister will be responsible for the consequences of all these policies, including the health policy, in front of an electorate. That is what underlies this matter. We should therefore vote to ensure that this treaty is renegotiated. Some amendment has to be made to ensure that that happens; if not, there has to be a referendum.
	The savagery of this guillotine is denying the House the opportunity properly to consider propositions such as the treaty's impact on the national health service. Although I may not entirely agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, I agree with the principle that someone in this House must be accountable to the people who vote us here.
	Let me turn to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had to say between the pancakes of yesterday and the ashes of today. He recanted, in a curious way, on the single market. Twenty years ago, the great idea was that we had to have a single market. Mrs. Thatcher believed that this would open up Europe. The distinction, of course, is between a common market and a single market. I want very rapidly, in light of the time constraints and the fact that the Minister for Europe wants yet again to reprise the same arguments that we have heard for the past few days, to show wherein lies the more dynamic model. The United States, for all its sins and everything else, is a common market. The vitality of the American economy has outshone that of the European economy over the past 20 years, and it is still an enormous engine for growth. The competition between those accountable units of government enables the dynamic of capitalism, if that is what one believes in, to flourish.
	We have been told that 450 billion of regulatory costs now rain down upon this structure. At the heart of all these arguments lies this question: who is accountable? We have a constitutional arrangement that means that the people of this country are sovereign in terms of the activities of this House. Within the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends, and within this group of amendments, lies the opportunity to give this Government a message about the treaty that they negotiated, despite the history. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee castigated my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for remembering the past, but we should remember Cicero, who said that those who know nothing of the past will for ever remain a child. In a sense, this great parliamentary Chamber has collective amnesia as regards remembering to whom we are accountable and who should form our laws. A common market beats, every day, a single market as constructed by the Commission and this treaty arrangement.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this evening's debate on the amendments. I remind the House collectively that the structure of the debate, and in fact this afternoon's debate, is not the structure initially proposed by the Government in their business motion but that proposed by Opposition Front Benchers in their amendmentthree hours followed by three hours.

Mark Francois: Let me nail this one now. In their amendment to the motion, the Opposition proposed 18 days of debate, and the Government turned that down. The Minister should not blame us for his bad motion.

Jim Murphy: There are four Conservative Back Benchers here at the moment. The hon. Gentleman's amendment to the business motion suggested one day on this issue, divided into two parts of three hours each, which is exactly what we have had today, so we are following his recommendation.

Richard Shepherd: This is entirely nonsensicalthe fancy dance before the guillotining of a constitutional motion. This debate could have had an open theme, and we would have been able to discuss the issues. Look at the home affairs debate, look at today's debatehuge rafts of matters have been unable to be discussed properly and functionally. The line that the Minister is taking is to say that the repression of the House of Commons is in the best interests of the House of Commons.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are now getting on to the mechanics rather than the substance of the debate.

Jim Murphy: The only point I was making was that the framework for today's debate has been the one set out by Opposition Front Benchers.
	On the amendments that were proposed and discussed during the past three hours or so, the debate started with the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) making his debut in our proceedings. He is a leading Liberal Democrat orange bookeror the leading orange booker. I did not know that before he rose to speak, but the House was in no doubt about it by the end of his contribution. He is a leading ideologue in the Lib Dem party on such matters. Despite that, his speech was very well informed and on occasion, where appropriate, it was remarkably self-deprecatingsomething that we do not hear often enough in his House.
	We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). On several occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley talked about the crucial need for stability in Europe and businesses in what she described as the Gatwick diamondI have no idea where that is [ Laughter. ] It sounds very expensive. She talked about fact that the stability that businesses in her constituency relish is offered by the European Union.
	We also heard an authoritative speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). Publiclyon television, in this House and in Select Committee hearingswe have not always seen eye to eye. We have disagreed on occasion, but the whole House respects the dogged and determined way in which he carries out his job as the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is now in his place, so it is appropriate to mention him. He has made his contribution on this Ash Wednesday. Unfortunately, but understandably, I had to miss mass today in order to listen to the hon. Gentleman. I have not yet decided what to give up for Lent [ Laughter. ] Thus far, my life, because it has been lived this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman repented, on this of all days, his previous votes. I was counting: he denied himself three times during his speech. I wish to congratulate him and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on what, in my 11 years in Parliament, is a firsta parliamentary innovation. It is the first time I have ever heard hon. Members quote as an authoritative source in the debate none other than themselves, from their previous speeches.

William Cash: In the same spirit, the Minister cannot blame us for quoting predictions we made in those days if, as far as we are concerned, they appear to have turned out to be right.

Jim Murphy: I cannot blame the hon. Gentleman. I missed his speech the first, second, third, fourth and fifth time that he gave it, so I was delighted to hear a reprise of it this evening.
	We also had an uncharacteristic contribution from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). He is not here now, so perhaps I shall refer to it later. In passing, I shall just say that he had all the passion of a convert in paying penance for his role in almost single-handedly achieving parliamentary ratification of the Maastricht treaty while deputy Chief Whip. If he returns to his place later, I shall respond to him in more detail, if time allows.
	The first group of amendments represents a systematic attempt by those on the Conservative Benches to undermine, in specific ways, the basic foundations of the single marketfoundations that have been accepted by successive British Governments since the UK's accession. Amendment No. 237 is a good illustration of that point. The right hon. Member for Wells celebrated the fact that every market needs rules, which of course, it does. However, that amendment would remove the principle of exclusive EU competence over competition rules for the single market.
	As the House will be aware, EU competition rules are an exclusive competence. How could they be otherwise? The Lisbon treaty defines competition rules as rules that are
	necessary for the functioning of the internal market.
	In other words, they are EU-wide rules. By definition, only the EU can adopt rules that apply across the EU. That is not new. Competition rules that are necessary for the functioning of the single market have always been an exclusive EU competence. It is important to note that the EU already occupies that well-established competition ground. The core competition rules are contained in articles 81 to 89 of the current treaty and their effect is carried over unchanged.
	Amendment No. 232 attacks the recognition in the Lisbon treaty of the fact that the single market is a shared competence between member states and the EU. It would remove the UK from the operation of the single market, which cannot work except as a shared competence. For the single market to operate effectively throughout all 27 EU member states, it is essential to manage some activities at EU level. Thanks to the shared competence, barriers have been removed throughout the single market, making free movement of goods a reality. That has brought billions of pounds of additional income to UK citizens.
	Amendment No. 195 would prevent the UK from effecting the protocol on the internal market and competition. It attacks the legally binding protocol language that the UK secured to reproduce the competition wording from the current treaty, which guarantees that the legal effect is unchanged. The legal nature of a protocol has been the subject of much conversation before today, as well as in today's proceedings. However, 17 protocols were annexed to the treaty of Maastricht. Protocol 11 was a legal guarantee that the UK was not obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. That was arguably the most important item in the Maastricht treaty for the UK. Claiming that protocols matter less than treaties is therefore nonsense.
	The Lisbon treaty states:
	The Protocols and Annexes to this Treaty shall form an integral part thereof.
	Former Prime Minister John Major said that the protocols agreed at Maastricht would become an integral part of the treaty of Rome and have equal legal force.

William Cash: We are obliged under the protocol to which the Minister refers to comply with convergence criteria and a range of other matters, which are mentioned in the Red Book that the Chancellor produces every year, and are inimical to this country running its economy. The protocol creates a framework, which, unfortunately, does us no good whatever.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a case for the effectiveness of the protocol, not the opposite.
	The majority of Conservative Back Benchers who attended this afternoon's debate are members of the Law Society. The Law Society has made it clear that a protocol records that the EU's internal market includes a system that ensures that competition is undistorted. It also says that that does not change the current legal position. Those views were expressed not by some foreign unaccountable entity, about which Conservative Members have spoken, but by the Law Society of England and Wales.
	Conservative Members have launched regular tirades against President Sarkozy. Yet he has occasionally described the Lisbon treaty as the British treaty, because the changes that we put in place are so important.
	Amendments Nos. 224, 231 and 235 would exclude the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that define a competence on common commercial policy from having an effect in UK law. The EU has had exclusive competence over common commercial policy since the treaty of Rome, and that has brought great benefits to the UK.
	Four amendments seek to remove articles and declarations that relate to the reunification of Germany. No Opposition Member saw fit to speak about them, but the Opposition nevertheless tabled them. They are of limited benefit and have consequences only for Germany.

William Cash: rose

Jim Murphy: Unfortunately, I have only two minutes left and I wish to conclude.
	The fact is that those amendments have consequence only in respect of Germany and German reunification, although I have no idea whether the Opposition have discussed in detail with their friend Angela Merkel whether she would wish the House of Commons to alter the treaty as it applies to Germany alone.
	In the limited time that I have left, let me deal with the points that my hon. Friends raised. They raised specific points about the role of the article 133 committee, which has existed since the treaty of Rome. The committee is not a conspiracy at the heart of the European Union, but my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) raised some important points about European trade policy and the way trade negotiations are conducted. Decisions are ultimately taken not by the committee but by the Council of Ministers. However, my hon. Friend's point is important: we have to have more detailed discussion, and on occasion perhaps even scrutiny of the workings of that committee or other relevant committees, undertaken by this House and the European Parliament in particular, which has an increased role.
	My hon. Friends also raised the issue of health, but were fair enough to acknowledge that the consolidated text makes the matter absolutely clear:
	Union action, which shall complement national policies, shall be directed towards improving public health.
	Public health was the important point in that text. The consolidated treaty continues:
	Union action shall respect the responsibilities of...Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them.

Jon Trickett: Will my hon. Friend therefore agree to veto any Commission directive of the kind that we have seen, should it re-emerge?

Jim Murphy: There is currently no proposal on the table, but we will look at the detail of any Commission proposal, and that issue will rightly be discussed in the House. I cannot be invited to veto a proposal that does not yet exist, but the text in the Lisbon treaty is very clear and strengthens the language about the autonomy and authority of member states in respect of their health services.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) rightly wants to respond, so to conclude, the amendments in the group would remove the protocol on competition and the provisions on self-employment, EU trade policy and intellectual property, the removal of which, in turn and cumulatively, would undermine the provisions of the single market. I invite my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mark Francois: Following your instructions, Mrs. Heal, we will not reprise the debate about the business motion, but I cannot help but observe that yet again, three groups of amendments have not been touched at all. We therefore did not get a chance to discuss social policies, intellectual property, or economic and monetary policy. Again, this is not the line-by-line scrutiny that the Prime Minister promised the House.
	The Government have prayed in aid some businesses in defence of their position. I remind the Minister that the Institute of Directors pointed out the strong similarities between the EU constitution and the treaty of Lisbon, and that 90 per cent. of members of the Federation of Small Businesses, which was polled internally because of concerns about the business implications of the treaty, said that they wanted to have a referendum. I put that to all on the Government Benches and to the Liberal Democrats.
	The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who was polite to me, said that we needed the changes in the treaty to promote the single market, but he made a mistake. He said that the Commission had undertaken infraction proceedings against a French utility to break up a monopoly. He is right, but the Commission is doing so under the existing treaty base, so Lisbon is not necessary for that. I need to correct the hon. Gentleman on that.
	The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee also accused me of dwelling in the past, because we have an irritating habit of reading all the Government's failed amendments in the constitution negotiations. We shall continue to do that, so that the British people understand the extent of the volte-face that has been carried out. Indeed, the Government's position this evening has been to criticise us for having the temerity to table an amendment very similar to one that they attempted to press some years ago, but failed. It is rather rich of them to criticise us for trying to put right what they did wrong.
	Amendment No. 237 would prevent the Commission from having exclusive competence in the area that we have debated tonight, so that if this House needed to legislate to maintain areas of competition, it could still do so. That seems to me eminently sensible, not least because the Government failed to do it. That is why I shall press the amendment to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 336.

Question accordingly negatived .
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Road Traffic, Wales

That the draft Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 7th January, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary James Purnell relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than Six o'clock; and proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption. [Mr. Blizzard.]

Post Office Closures (Taunton)

Jeremy Browne: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members who are not staying for the petition and the Adjournment please leave the Chamber as quickly and quietly as possible?

Jeremy Browne: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I wish to present a petition about the widespread concern in Somerset about the post office closures proposed for later this month, which will have a major impact on isolated communities, local businesses and vulnerable people, particularly pensioners. The petition reads:
	The Petition of residents of Taunton constituency and others,
	Declares that the government are proposing to shut 2,500 Post Offices which represents 1-in-5 of the present total. This will hit local communities in Somerset hard.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to save our vital Post Offices which offer an essential service to communities across Taunton constituency.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000119]

Internet (Child Protection)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]

Hugo Swire: Seven or so years ago, a Home Office Minister said in a parliamentary answer on the taskforce for child protection that the
	aim is to make the United Kingdom (UK) the best and safest place in the world for children to use the internet.[ Official Report, 4 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 671W.]
	Last year, however, 32 per cent. of children said that they had received unwanted, nasty or sexual comments while on the web. Freedom of information and the unhampered exchange of that information are, of course, at the heart of a free world. What we do not want is Government control of the internet, such as exists in China and elsewhere. The internet is a space for creativity, communication and a fantastic tool for use in education. Too often, any discussion of internet safety leads to the internet being labelled as a bad thing. Clearly, the reverse is the case, but internet users should expect a degree of protection not least from fraud and illegal content, and, for our children, from harmful content.
	I start by paying tribute to the impressive work of Dr. Tanya Byron and her Byron review, and I look forward with interest to her recommendations. The Culture, Media and Sport Committeewhose Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), is presentis about to start taking oral evidence on this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has put forward a private Member's Bill to classify video content downloads, in order to help protect children, among other things. So I believe that this subject is topical.
	Tonight's debate takes on increasing relevance given the recent spate of suicides in Bridgend. Today, we awoke to the tragic news that there had been a 14th victim. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) has raised this in Parliament and has secured an Adjournment debate tomorrow, which I am sure will be well attended.
	The Government have the option to make content illegal, as they have with extreme pornography, race hatred and child abuse. The Government also have a role to protect children, and that is what I want to focus on this evening. Schools' hard-pressed IT departments do not have the resources, nor parents the know-how, to protect our children.
	Another problem is that eight Government Departments have an interest in internet content: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health, the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. There is a real lack of ownership within Government of internet content regulation.
	The Government can solve that by establishing a lead Department and developing a co-regulatory structure to regulate internet content, bringing together, for example, charities, parents, academics, relevant Government Departments, law enforcement agencies and the industry itself, to decide codes of conduct in grey areas. That could work along the lines of the Advertising Standards Authority or the Press Complaints Commission, and would replace the current piecemeal and knee-jerk codes of conduct and self-regulation; let us call it the internet standards authority. Harmful contentthat is content where cultural, taste and decency judgments have to be madewould come under the internet standards authority remit and could include glorification of violence and terrorism, pornography, cyber-bullying, suicide, internet gambling and anorexia websites, some of which Members might think are worth banning. However, the list is not exhaustive.
	The internet standards authority would build a dynamic filter and create a blacklist database which would be updated hourly. Internet service providers would then offer two choices of content, one for adults and one for children. I envisage the child content would be the default, with adult content accessed with a pin code, or some such protective device. South Korea is an example of where that ISP regulatory system has been successfully implemented, and Australia is considering it. Further filtering could continue at the personal computer level on the fly which would look for unacceptable terms and images.
	Robust internet filtering is a technological area that is fast developing, although it is not there yet, which is why I believe ISPs should take the lead in filtering at the network level. I know the British Standards Institution is developing a kitemark, which is a welcome, if belated, development. Hopefully, technological progress will solve some of the issues that we cannot control now. Webcams and peer-to-peer and encrypted content will always present challenges. I do not intend to predict future technological innovations, but filtering web 2.2 generation content when, for example, eight hours of footage per minute is uploaded on to YouTube, will present challenges.
	An internet standards authority would be more responsive to new internet trends and lighter on its feet than Government legislation. Perversely, ISPs are being held back from implementing best efforts to protect customers and children lest they be held liable for overblocking or for harmful content being accessed. A number of ISPs do offer content-filtering for children, such as AOL's KOL Jr. pre-school, KOL ages six to 12 and RED ages 13 to 17, and I welcome that, but ISPs are as concerned as I am about the low take-up of available tools. That is why I believe my opt-out approach has merit. An internet standards authority would have the ability to promote its work and improve transparency while also educating parents and ensuring that children surf responsibly.
	Promoting a safer environment and raising awarenesswhat I describe as soft power improvementsalso present challenges and will cost money. Internet playgrounds should be supervised in the same way as parks used to be supervised. We need to empower parents and teachers so they are able to supervise, advise and guide children in exploring the online world.
	We need to set up a new co-regulatory structure, an internet standards authority, to fight illegal and harmful content, promote a safer environment and raise awareness. ISPs should deliver an acceptable service for children whereby they would be able safely to access the internet while adults could access all other content through a PIN or similar device. We should ensure that internet companies that advertise carry responsibility messages, such as those we see on alcohol advertising and cigarette packages. A hotline number in the UK is operated by the excellent Internet Watch Foundation, and it should be displayed. We need to empower parents, teachers and children in respect of their responsibilities and the risks of going online. Finally, any internet-ready platform should be sold with a robust, self-updating, tamper-proof internet filter pre-installed.
	Those proposals are not about censorship; they are about creating the regulatory environment to enable our children to surf safely, so that they can expand the horizons of their knowledge. Of course, I do not believe we can remove all risk to children, but we can make this country a safer place in what, at times, seems to be an increasingly dangerous world for our children.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing this important debate, and thank him for the measured way in which he put some important points to the House. He made a good contribution to the discussion on this matter. I know that he takes an interest in this subject and is very knowledgeable about it.
	I also welcome the attendance of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. We all look forward to the work that it is going to do in an incredibly important area. In many respects, as soon as one moves forward in the virtual and internet world, one almost has to move forward again. This evening's debate, albeit short, will play an important part in continuing to raise awareness of this extremely important issue. I look forward to the Committee's inquiry and to the continuing dialogue that the hon. Member for East Devon doubtless wishes to take place. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to come to the Department to talk about these matters, that would be usefulI extend that invitation to all those who wish to participate in such talks.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) made the valid point that there are many Departments involved in this issue. It appears that Dr. Byron is taking the lead in setting up her review, and that is being conducted mainly under the Department for Children, Schools and Families, supported by officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so while I am delighted to see the Minister here this evening, I am slightly puzzled about why the Home Office is responding to the debate. Perhaps he could say something about how all these different Departments will work together.

Vernon Coaker: I will address that issue, but as chair of the Home Secretary's taskforce for child protection on the internet I have worked with officials from many Departments, who come to the meetings and are involved in developing good practice and discussing the various issues. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is a new Department, with a particular emphasis on preventing harm to children and protecting families, and that is one reason why the Byron review is being conducted under that Department. However, I have also met Dr. Byron, and will do so again, to talk about the work that we are doing. I know that she is especially interested in the way that the taskforce has taken the agenda forward. It has brought not only Departments together, but industry and children's charitiesthose who have an interest in making progress in this area.
	Whatever system we set upand the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford may also consider thatit is important to ensure that the work of Departments is co-ordinated and that we involve industry and stakeholders in the machinery of government. We will see over the next few weeks that that collaboration and co-operation has resulted in significant progress, without any debate about possible legislation.
	The hon. Member for East Devon mentioned the terrible events in Bridgend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) has a debate on the issue tomorrow. She has already met with various people to discuss those events. I wish to extend my sympathy to the families and all those affected. However, the issues behind the deaths are likely to be very complicated. We are very much aware of some media reports claiming that there is an internet aspect to these incidents, but other reports cast doubt on that. It would be wrong to prejudge the investigations that are already taking place, and we will wish to follow further developments closely.
	We also recognise that young people will discuss many difficult issues, including that of suicide, on various websites. That requires very sensitive handling and we need to be wary of preventing them from discussing their thoughts and feelings openly. We are working, through the Home Secretary's taskforce for child protection on the internet, with social networking companies to ensure that there are links to support bodies such as ChildLine and the Samaritans for those who seek support and advice on this issue.
	On the very separate matter of what are commonly referred to as suicide websites, the Government have been working with service providers to discourage them from hosting sites that appear to encourage suicide. While the internet remains a fantastic environment for obtaining all sorts of information, there is no doubt that it does have a darker side. Indeed, the Prime Minister has recently shown his concern about the issue of harmful and inappropriate content by setting up the Byron review. The Byron review team has been doing a lot of work to gather views from all stakeholders, and is due to report in March. The Home Office fully supports the review, and looks forward to seeing the final report. I have met with Dr. Byron and her team, as I said, and have been impressed by the work that they are doingindeed, one member of her team attended the most recent taskforce meetingand the approach that they are taking in working with all groups to look at the problems in this area.
	The internet and mobile technologies have helped to provide children with education, entertainment, and the ability to communicate with their friends. These technologies bring our children new opportunities and lots of fun, but we need to balance that with the risks and worries that parents have about their children accessing inappropriate content.
	There is no doubt that most of the time the internet is a safe place, and the Government have encouraged its use in schools and in the home. It therefore rightly falls on Government to help to develop a response to help protect our children and we have been active in that area. Since 2001, the Home Secretary's taskforce has been a very successful method of bringing together Departments, industry, law enforcement and charities to develop measures to help protect children from illegal content and sexual predators in the fast-moving world of technology and the internet.
	The taskforce is periodically reviewing its membership and is eager to include all bodies involved in protecting children online. Indeed, cyber-bullying is a relatively new phenomenon and we are looking to widen the range of partners involved in the taskforce in order to look at the issue more closely. I look forward to meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), to discuss the matter in the near future.
	I would welcome further information from the hon. Member for East Devon on the South Korean model that he mentioned. That could be a good focus for the meeting that I suggested. If the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford wants to come to that meeting, I would be happy to hear in more detail about the points that he has made. I am not averse to learning from other countries. If they have something that might benefit us, we ought to try to learn from that. I will be happy to meet both hon. Gentlemen and to talk to them about that model.
	I welcome the support that industry has given to the process, which I believe is an exceptionally useful method for tackling issues effectively and in a collaborative way through self-regulation and without the need for legislation. One of the major pieces of work that the taskforce has recently completed is the definition of a British Standards Institution specification for filtering tools for home users of the internet. Although filtering tools have been around for many years now, concerns have been raised about their effectiveness and their usability.
	The new specification will allow the developers of filtering products to test them against the standard designed to protect children and other users from illegal or unsuitable content. That specification has been developed with the BSI, Ofcom and industry and will be launched in the near future. Companies whose products pass the tests will be able to display the child safety online kitemark on their products, allowing members of the public to identify them as having reached that standard. I want to encourage as many companies as possible that offer filtering products to the market to apply for the kitemark once it is launched. I am sure that we all hope that that will happen.
	All hon. Members will also be aware that the internet is misused by paedophiles to share and distribute terrible images of children being sexually abused. We also know that adults will use the internet to gain access to children and young people so that they can groom them for sexual abuse. I am sure that we all agree that everything that can be done should be done to prevent the distribution of these images and to protect children from unwanted contact from predatory adults.
	The Internet Watch Foundation was funded and formed by the industry in 1996 following agreement between the Government, police and the internet industry that a partnership approach was needed to tackle the distribution of child sexual abuse images on the internet. The IWF operates the only authorised hotline in the UK for the public to report their inadvertent exposure to illegal content on the internet, providing a notice and take-down service to internet service providers in the UK so they can remove potentially illegal content from their servers. The IWF works closely with law enforcement agencies at home and abroad to help them trace offenders.
	The IWF estimates that since 2003, less than 1 per cent. of child abuse image websites are hosted in the UK compared to 18 per cent. in 1996. We would all like that figure to be 0 per cent., but that shows considerable progress. In addition, the IWF has developed a service to provide a list of URLs where illegal images are hosted. That list, which has been made available to the industry, enables the sites containing child abuse images to be blocked.
	Since 2004, blocking of these sites on consumer broadband in the UK has gone from nothing to 95 per cent., thanks to the work carried out by the industry. The Home Office is working with a number of smaller ISPs to identify ways that they can implement blocking economically. Once that has been done, the number of connections covered by blocking will rise further.

John Whittingdale: The Minister is right that the IWF has done a great deal to tackle the problem of child pornography on the internet, but the Panorama programme a few weeks ago exposed the problem of paedophiles posing as young girls to access social networking sites. That enables them to find out information that they are then able post for almost anybody to see. What progress has been made in dealing with that?

Vernon Coaker: One problem is that paedophiles will always try to find a way around our attempts to keep them out. The guidance on social networking that we will publish soon will look at what is good practice for ISPs in tackling that problem, but CEOPthe child exploitation and online protection centreand other organisations are also taking the law enforcement approach. If the hon. Gentleman has not visited Jim Gamble and CEOP already, he should consider doing so, as that would enable him to see all the different types of work being undertaken. The people involvedpolice officers, technical experts and othersare very dedicated in their attempts to trap the paedophiles who use the internet in such a horrific way.
	The work is hi-tech, because paedophiles who suspect that they have been traced tend to move on. Moreover, they have astonishing technical expertise in using the internet, and that can be countered only by people with matching ability. I am sure that anyone who sees what is being done by CEOP will be as impressed as I have been.
	Blocking is not an issue for personal computers only: with more and more children using mobile phones, and with mobile phone technology growing exponentially, it is imperative that we engage with that part of the industry. All UK mobile phone providers are members of the Home Secretary's taskforce and have actively supported the development of good practice models. They are also members of the IWF and have agreed to block customer access to sites that the IWF has listed as containing illegal images of child abuse.
	Mobile telephone operators in the UK have been pioneers in the protection of their child customers. They have shown that they take protecting children from inappropriate content very seriously, and they were the first in the world to publish a self-regulatory content code for mobiles. That requires customers to prove that they are at least 18 years of age before they can get access to adult commercial content.
	As chair of the taskforce for child protection on the internet, I know how important it is to ensure that we remain ahead of the game when it comes to protecting children. I am proud of the taskforce's work: it has attracted interest from around the world, with many people asking how it operates. Since its inception, the taskforce has developed good practice guidance for web services, the internet, relay chat, safe searching and moderation services, but we all know that the internet keeps evolving. For example, very few of us had heard of social networking sites 18 months ago, but many millions of people now have profiles or web pages on such sites.
	A multi-stakeholder project group from the taskforce has been working on developing good practice guidance for social networking and user interactive services. Leading players in the industryand especially those involved in providing social networking servicesalong with CEOP, the child protection charities and others have been involved in, and contributed to, the production of the good practice guidance. I am pleased to say that the document will be launched in the near future, and I should like to ask the hon. Members for East Devon and for Maldon and East Chelmsford to attend that event. I hope that they will be able to accept that invitation.
	As most hon. Members will be aware, CEOP was established in April 2006 to tackle the abuse and exploitation of children and young people, particularly from sexual predators who use the internet to distribute illegal images of children and young people, and to gain access to them so that they can be groomed for abuse. Staffed by the police, as well as child protection, education and industry specialists, the centre provides a single online 24-hour-a-day mechanism for reporting those who seek to use the internet to abuse children.
	On a point that the hon. Member for East Devon raised, CEOP launched and ran an education programme, which last year reached 1.1 million children and their parents. He made the important point that we must educate not only children, but parents, so that they understand what their children can do on the internet. I am sure he, like me, finds that when he talks to parents, they sometimes have a much more limited understanding of the virtual world than their children do. We all have a big role to play in trying to help parents understand what is possible on the internet, so that they can work with their children to try to protect them, although the state must do its bit, too.
	As I say, CEOP works with parents, and it plans to ensure that a further 3.5 million children are reached over the next two years, and that every primary school is provided with free resources. It also runs the thinkuknow website for children, parents and teachers. Since CEOP began operating in April 2006, some 240 offenders have been arrested, three paedophile rings have been smashed, and 138 children have been rescued from harm. That is a major achievement for UK law enforcement, and the creation of CEOP makes it clear that we are determined to protect children in the digital environment.
	Today's children are sophisticated users of the internet, and their knowledge of it is ever-evolving, but we should never forget that they are children. Protecting them must therefore continue to be one of our priorities. The fact that the work is about protecting children in our communities can often get lost in all the technology issues. A collaborative approach to tackling the issue is essential if we are to prevent the exploitation of children on the internet. By working together with industry, Government, law enforcement agencies, children's charities and other interested parties, the taskforce has made progress in protecting children online. However, I recognise that there is always more to be done.
	I welcome the Byron review, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's debate. I look forward to meeting him, and perhaps the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, to discuss the subject, and in particular the Korean model that the hon. Member for East Devon presented to us. We can discuss that and many other matters, while we all pursue our common goal of doing all that we can to protect our children on the internet.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Nine o'clock.

Deferred Division

Local government

That the draft Wiltshire (Structural Change) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 8th January, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.